Business of the House (Hansard, 22 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 26 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill.
Motions on the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) and (Construction Board) Orders.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for Consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 27 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords].
Motion to take note of the annual report of the European Court of Auditors for 1988 and related EC document on action against fraud. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 28 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on the Royal Air Force on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY I MARCH—St. David's day—There will be a debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 2 MARCH—Private Members' Bills
MONDAY 5 MARCH—Opposition day (10th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject for debate to be announced.

§ Dr. Cunningham
I am sure that the debate on Welsh affairs that is to take place on St. David's day will be warmly welcomed.
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House what proposals he has for allowing the House to debate and deal with the recent report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests? Has he had a chance to consider how we may deal with that matter? Is he in a position to say anything about it today?
Has the Leader of the House noticed that yesterday the Minister for Social Security was once again found guilty by the High Court of acting unlawfully in respect of the social fund? May we be given next week either an oral statement or time for a debate on the High Court's decision? Are we to be told the Government's intentions, given that, as of now, Ministers persist with an unlawful activity and are denying many thousands of people facing severe financial hardship their legal entitlement to benefit? May we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that the Government will not, as they have done in the past, introduce retrospective legislation to render lawful their hitherto unlawful actions?
Has the Leader of the House had a chance to consider 1074 the events yesterday involving the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment who said, referring to an hon. Member: he has registered there for the standard community charge"—[Official Report, 21 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 916.] The hon. Gentleman made a definitive statement. The regulations approved by the House on confidentiality for the administration and enforcement of the community charge—the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989—stipulate in paragraph 11(5)(c) on page 7 that the extracts of the poll tax register available for public inspection shall not identify whether the community charge which arises by virtue of any residence, property or dwelling is a personal, standard or collective community charge. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the Minister came to the House yesterday with confidential information on a Member of the House which he was not entitled to have. There can be no doubt about it. He made a definitive statement saying that he had that information, and it is beyond doubt that he must have had it to make a statement.
On the same day, one Minister has been found to be acting unlawfully in the High Court, and another Minister has breached regulations laid down by Parliament. Should not both Ministers come to the House as soon as possible to answer for their activities?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The first and substantial part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks was a question about the recent report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. As the House fully appreciates, that is an important matter for the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) as well as for the House in general. I hope to be in a position to make a reasonably early announcement about my proposals for a debate on that subject, but, in the meantime, I am obviously consulting widely within the House about the appropraiate form of motion to be tabled for debate. I shall advise the House of my conclusions as soon as I sensibly can.
The hon. Member made a point about the social fund. Obviously, I shall give consideration to his request for a statement, but I see no need for one. There was nothing in the recent court judgment on the social fund that called into question the basic aims and operations of the fund. As I understand it, the court recognised the clear intention of Parliament that the scheme should be subject to strict monetary limits. The court found that the strong form of wording was not appropriate to guidance. Since the basic legal framework is not in question, the Government do not anticipate any sudden change in the pattern of awards.
On the subject of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), it will be within the recollection of the House that he has made much of his residence in Coventry. The community charge register is a matter of public record—[interruption.] Allow me to finish, please. It is a matter of public record and it is manifest from the public record that the hon. Gentleman is registered for the community charge in Wandsworth. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment inferred that it was his second home—[Interruption.] It is not an unreasonable inference. Moreover, my hon. Friend has written a letter in reply to the letter which he received from the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) setting out the foundations for that inference. If it is incorrect, of course it can be corrected; but so far nothing has been said to suggest that it is incorrect.

§ Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement to the House clarifying the law relating to councillors—including Labour councillors in London—who have said that they will not register for the community charge, or will not pay it, and then proceed to vote on council motions relating to the settlement of the charge? Is that lawful?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I cannot answer that question, but I will bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I hope that all hon. Members, as well as all councillors in all parties, will take every action that they should take to pay the community charge for which they are liable.

§ Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)
The Leader of the House will have heard the answer given a few minutes ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) by the Prime Minister about the steel industry in Scotland. Does he accept that, in view of the temporary closures already suffered by Ravenscraig since privatisation, considerable concern is felt by Scottish Members on both sides of the House? They fear that British Steel has no interest in keeping the plant going at a high level if it is likely to be declared redundant and taken over by a competitor. For that reason, we consider that there is an urgent need to debate the alternative proposition—the creation of a Scottish steel company in the near future.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, which fortifies that made by his hon. Friend. It goes a long way to support what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—that the privatisation of the steel industry has played an important part in offering better prospects for it. Commercial decisions are a matter for British Steel and not for the Government.

§ Mr. Allan Stewart (Eastwood)
Has my right hon. and learned Friend had an opportunity to study early-day motion 545?
[That this House congratulates the Paisley Central Labour Party for their condemnation of the roof tax; notes that the roof tax has been rejected by all shades of responsible Scottish opinion; that the Labour Party's proposals for England and Wales are radically. different from those for Scotland; that the roof tax has all the unfair and unjust features of the wholly discredited domestic rating system with many additional injustices and anomalies; and calls upon the Labour Party to accept the views of Paisley Central and drop those unwelcome proposals.]
Is he aware of today's press reports that a senior and distinguished figure in the Labour movement, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), is to make a speech describing the Labour party's roof tax proposals as "a charade" and "a dreadful mess"? Is he also aware that those proposals appear to differ radically north and south of the border, and can he offer any prospect of an early debate so that the Labour party can withdraw its unjust, unfair and unwanted plans?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
My hon. Friend has made an important point. If the reports are correct, it is significant that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) is to join the wisdom of the Paisley, Central Labour party in recognising the disastrous effect that the 1076 introduction of a roof tax would have on people in Scotland. I do not know whether it is possible for us to debate the subject; perhaps the Opposition will give us an opportunity to do so.

§ Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)
Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), may I press the Leader of the House for a statement or a debate on the Data Protection Act 1984 and the poll tax—particularly practice notes 4 and 6 and section 8 of note 3?
Is the Leader of the House aware that, when the Secretary of State for the Environment said yesterday that my poll tax details in Wandsworth were in the public domain, he spoke far truer than the thought? When the BBC telephoned Wandsworth council this morning, it was told that anyone could check the details of the poll tax register by telephone; yet, 40 minutes ago, the Department of the Environment told me that the only way in which people could check the register was to go physically to the finance reception department at Wandsworth town hall.
This is not about me; it is a matter of principle. It could as easily apply to a battered wife seeking refuge in Wandsworth from a violent husband. It is not just a case of confidential information being given out: Wandsworth is giving out such information willy-nilly on the telephone.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The hon. Gentleman is excited about a wide range of matters, but the central point at issue is whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment could reasonably infer, in order to make it known to the House, that the hon. Gentleman's Wandsworth home was his second home. The fact of his having a Wandsworth home is legitimately a matter of public knowledge. My hon. Friend has written a letter to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), saying that, if any of the inferences were incorrect, he would naturally wish for them to be corrected at the earliest possible opportunity. The only question remaining is whether my hon. Friend was right to infer that the hon. Gentleman's home in Wandsworth was a second home.

§ Mr. John Biffen (Shropshire, North)
Earlier this afternoon my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—under the Svengalian, mesmerising influence of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—seemed to rule out any possible changes in the methods of financing education before the next general election. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many Conservative Members would like to share the status of the hon. Member for Bolsover and to seek the ear of the Prime Minister in an attempt to persuade her that there is a good case for the financing of education by the Exchequer? Could he arrange a debate on the subject in the near future?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I understand my right hon. Friend's interest in the matter, but I cannot undertake to arrange a debate upon it merely in response to his request. However, I can assure him that he will never need to emulate the style or the personality of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in order to secure the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

§ Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South)
Is the Leader of the House aware that the case of Sub-Lieutenant Simon Rowland, who suffered brain damage after heat stroke that went unnoticed by his instructor, is not an isolated 1077 case? During the last 10 years, 663 service men have been injured and 12 have been killed by heat stroke, but there has not been a single prosecution. May we have a debate, therefore, next week on the need for the automatic courts martial of officers involved in training when service men are seriously injured or killed? Could there be an independent scrutiny of the cases during the past 10 years where there have been no prosecutions? May we also debate the need for the dismissal from the Royal Navy of Sub-Lieutenant Rowland's instructor?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I cannot immediately offer the prospect of a debate on that topic, as requested by the right hon. Gentleman. However, I can assure him that the recommendations of the board of inquiry into the Rowland case are being implemented. Instructors in survival training are being given more first-aid training, and staff are being issued with portable phones in order to improve reaction times. Course syllabuses and casualty evacuation procedures are being reviewed, and medical advice is given to all personnel on the prevention of heat stress.

§ Sir Richard Body (Holland with Boston)
Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen early-day motion 562 on the Order Paper?
[That this House seeks an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not remove the ban on the irradiation of food until many unresolved safety issues have been addressed, in particular its effects on packaging, pesticides and food additives, and that it will not introduce irradiation without a practical and reliable set of tests that can detect irradiation and the dosage in all foodstuffs; and welcomes the National Federation of Women's Institutes and Consumers' Association lobby on 22nd February highlighting consumer fears of irradiation and requesting that Her Majesty's Government guarantees time to both Houses to debate this issue prior to the introduction of regulations.]
Better still, has he seen the 500 charming and persuasive ladies in the mass lobby on behalf of the National Federation of Women's Institutes who have come to support the early-day motion? May I go and tell them that, if not next week, at some time the House will have an opportunity to debate food irradiation? Before we do so, the House ought to be given access to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's information about the safety of irradiated food.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
My hon. Friend does not need me to remind him that food irradiation has been thoroughly researched and that the process has been pronounced safe by international, Community and United Kingdom independent expert committees. However, the subject has aroused widespread interest. My hon. Friend recognises, I think, that there will be an opportunity to debate the process when the Food Safety Bill is considered. In that context, I shall draw his request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

§ Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, East)
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Chope), had written to my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) to say that, if he had misled the 1078 House, he would withdraw what he said. Should not the Under-Secretary of State come to the House and make a statement?
Several years ago, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbitt) said something to me across the Floor of the House that was challenged. The following day he came to the House and honourably made a statement withdrawing the accusation. Surely the straightforward course of action would be for the Under-Secretary of State to make a statement. He deliberately misused information that he was not entitled to use. Therefore, he should clear up the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The facts remain fundamentally simple. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has made it plain that his residence is in Coventry. It is a matter of public record that he is registered for the community charge in Wandsworth. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary therefore inferred that his Wandsworth home was his second home. The fact that that home was on the public register led my hon. Friend to conclude that he had not sought anonymity from the community charge registration officer. I repeat again that, if, in the correspondence that has already taken place between my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman, either of those inferences is incorrect, naturally I would wish to have them corrected at the earliest opportunity. That remains the position, that is the record and those are the facts as presented by my hon. Friend.

§ Sir Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington)
My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that various county councils are lodging their structure growth plans. Is he also aware that the advent of the M40 is generating tremendous pressure for extra housing in the middle of England, particularly in mid-Warwickshire? I suspect that it is happening in other parts of the country as well. In those circumstances, there are enormous pressures on the green belt, which Conservative Members have always regarded as sacrosanct. Does he agree that there will be some advantage in due course in having a debate on the preservation of the green belt?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
As my constituency demonstrates many of the same anxieties about the importance of the green belt, I understand why my hon. Friend raises that issue. I cannot promise him a debate, but I shall certainly bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
Is the Leader of the House aware that, since the Government entered a reservation on behalf of Hong Kong and allowed 670 tonnes of elephant ivory to come on to the world market, the Kenyan wildlife director, Richard Leakey, has announced that poaching has risen sharply in Kenya, where conservation of the elephant is under very strict control, so it must be worse in other African countries? Is he not now convinced that it was a total mistake on the part of the Government to allow that Hong Kong ivory on to the world market? Will he allow the House to have not an Adjournment debate but an Executive debate and a vote so that we can discover whether the House wishes the Government to reverse that reservation?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The hon. Gentleman, who takes a tenacious interest in that topic, knows that Hong Kong is not a market for poached ivory, because there is already a total ban on imports of ivory. The strict controls there 1079 include licensing for possession of quantities over 5 kg and monitoring movements of ivory between licensed holders. If there is any evidence of Hong Kong complicity in poaching, and in particular if Dr. Leakey can produce evidence of complicity by Hong Kong traders in illegal trading in ivory, we shall investigate it.

§ Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham)
Rather than discussing the European Court of Auditors, does not my right hon. and learned Fried agree that it would be even more topical to discuss yesterday's decision by the European Court of Human Rights which means that hundreds of thousands of people living near Heathrow who suffer from the noise of 900 flights every day cannot sue for nuisance and have no legal remedy? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I am concerned about the welfare and peace of mind not only of my constituents in Twickenham but of residents of neighbouring boroughs such as Wandsworth, including the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
My hon. Friend raises a matter of importance for him and his constituents. He may not appreciate that the Patronage Secretary and I represent constituencies that are contiguous to another London airport, Gatwick, so we share his concern. However, I cannot promise the prospect of an early debate.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
May I for the third time ask for a debate on wages in the Refreshment Department of the House of Commons? Is the Leader of the House aware that I have a letter dated 20 June 1989 from the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving), saying that there are some people in that Department who are underpaid? He admits that they are underpaid. May we have a debate on the matter, because it seems that the Committee is taking no action and some action should be taken?
In the light of what my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House said, there has been a breach of regulations in the case of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman may ask only one question at business questions, in fairness to the other hon. Members.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
What action will be taken?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The hon. Gentleman should raise, in such detail as he wishes, the wages of staff in the Refreshment Department of the House in correspondence with either the Chairman of the Sub-Committee or with myself, as Chairman of the Services Committee, rather than raising it, as he has done several times, on the Floor of the House. Let him set it out in an orderly fashion in correspondence, and it will be studied.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)
In supporting the request made a little earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), may I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to early-day motion 571 on educational funding?
[That this House believes that following the Government's education reforms, particularly the move towards local management for schools, there is now a 1080 changing role for local education authorities and a compelling case for education funds to be provided directly from central Government.]
It has been signed by more than 50 Conservative Members. Will he find time for a debate on the need to transfer the total cost of education from local government to central Government to make the community charge, which is right in principle, sensible in practice?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I take note of the fact that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members would like the matter to be debated, but I am unable to promise the prospect of a debate. The Government have no plans at present to change the way in which education is funded.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)
Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 429 on New Consensus in Ireland?
[That this House gives its full support to the broad-based Irish group New Consensus which aims to challenge at every opportunity apathy and ambivalence about the right to human life in Northern Ireland, to promote the equal right of all citizens to the democratic control of their destiny, to defend the principles of mutual respect and civil liberty as the basis for democratic, non-sectarian social activity in Ireland, North and South, and to reject all forms of paramilitary activities; and further supports the initiative of New Consensus in organising a dignified picket of the Sinn Fein annual conference in Dublin on the weekend of 3rd and 4th February, to call upon the Irish Republican Army to stop its murder campaign and to reject the claim that they act in the name of the people of Ireland.]
What inference does he draw from it? New Consensus has been established to oppose any ambivalence or apathy to the right to life in Northern Ireland. Its representatives have been in the House today. Might it be a good opportunity for us to debate democracy and civil liberties in Northern Ireland and Ireland?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I am not familiar with all the aims and ambitions of New Consensus. In so far as it draws attention to the evils of terrorist violence and seeks to counter the actions of the Provisonal IRA and Sinn Fein, the Government welcome its activities.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
A number of hon. Members are rising who were not rising previously. In view of the great pressure on the following debate, in which I shall have to place a 10-minute limit on speeches, questions will continue until half-past four, when we must move on.

§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)
Is there not a need for an early debate on local government finance, so that we can congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) on doing what everyone in this country is entitled to do—order their tax affairs to their best advantage? If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about living in Wandsworth and a Militant force coming round to kneecap him, perhaps we could do a swap. I live in the London borough of Lewisham, which has a high community charge. I should be happy to move to Wandsworth and let the hon. Gentleman have my secret address in Lewisham.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
Far be it from me to intervene in the somewhat hazardous domestic arrangements suggested by my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton)
The Government will be aware of the Gardner report on leukaemia clusters and the comments that have been made in the wake of it. One thing is sure: a massive financial investment in both civil and military installations is required. The Government's watchdog, the National Radiological Protection Board, has asked the Department of Health to undertake a study of the medical records of more than 100,000 people who have been exposed to radiation since 1946. Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister to make a statement on this issue?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I cannot give such an undertaking, but I shall bring the question to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. John Bowis (Battersea)
Further to the question about my constituent, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), will my right hon. and learned Friend grant the request for a debate? It would enable us to explain that Wandsworth borough council may reveal who has registered for the community charge, but it will never give out a private address and never say whether it is a community or standard charge. A debate would give the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East the opportunity to say whether his main home is in Wandsworth or Coventry. It might also offer Opposition Members the opportunity to explain why so many of them live in Wandsworth, with its benefits of low community charge and high services. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will accede to that request.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
My hon. Friend has done so well in representing the interests of his constituents and of Wandsworth council that I hardly need to offer him the benefit of a full debate.

§ Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)
Is the leader of the House aware that the British film industry is the best and finest in the world? Is he aware also that an all-party group visited Pinewood last week to find out about the problems in the industry? It is going downhill, and has been for a considerable time. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate so that we can consider seriously what help can be given to the industry? Incidentally, I am waiting for a contract. I hope that the Leader of the House will do something about the problem.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The persuasive clarity of the hon. Gentleman's advocacy of the subject commends it to me more than many that have been mentioned this afternoon.

§ Mr. Andrew MacKay (Berkshire, East)
In the light of the unfortunate and unseemly scenes on the Floor of the House at Question Time yesterday and immediately after, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it might be wise for us to have a further debate on procedure so that we can establish when points of order should and should not be taken?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I fancy that the House has had its fill of debates on procedure for a week or two.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Will the Leader of the House reconsider the question of having a debate about the poll tax and in particular its—

§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett
Where is the hon. Gentleman's second home?

§ Mr. Skinner
It is in highly rated Lambeth—and I am only a lodger.
Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate about the transfer to central Government of teachers' salaries, education as a whole, fire, police and so on—a plea voiced by his hon. Friends? The Leader of the House is well known for using coded language to explain his differences with the Prime Minister. He could take part in that debate and tell us exactly what he feels. I warn him, however, not to become too semi-detached.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I am always grateful for warnings from the hon. Gentleman, even when I think that they are wholly unnecessary.

§ Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us feel that the agony of the poll tax could have been spared us had the burden of education been transferred from the rates long ago? Is he aware that many of us believe that the case is stronger than ever now for that burden to be transferred to central Government? May I add my plea to those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and others that we debate the matter very soon?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I understand that a number of my hon. Friends have an interest in discussing the subject. I must tell my hon. Friend of the general rule that the transfer of a burden from one place to another does not always result in it becoming any more comfortable.

§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)
Despite his cool and legalistic interpretation of the High Court judgment yesterday concerning the administration of the social fund, is the Leader of the House aware that that decision had profound implications for many scores of thousands of people who are in receipt of income supplement? May I ask for an early statement by the Secretary of State for Social Security on the matter? Such a statement, among other things, should point out what advice or directives have been sent to local offices of the DSS to enable people to reapply for grants and loans which were denied them under the disgraceful administration of the fund.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
As I have already told the House, the court judgment did not call into question the basic aims and operation of the fund. I have explained why, for that reason, we do not regard a statement as necessary. I also told the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that I would consider the request and bring the point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I give no undertaking in respect of it.

§ Mr. Patrick Thompson (Norwich, North)
May I again draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to early-day motion 571?
[That this House believes that following the Government's education reforms, particularly the move towards local management for schools, there is now a changing role for local education authorities and a compelling case for education funds to be provided directly from central Government.]
It has now been signed by 57 of my hon. Friends of all varieties. I am very much looking forward to the signature 1083 of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) being added to the list. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give serious consideration to an early debate on education, so that the educational case for making the transfer of funding to the centre may be fully put and debated in the House?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I understand my hon. Friend's representation of an additional reason for discussion of that motion. I shall give consideration to it, but I cannot give any undertaking on the prospects for a debate.

§ Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye)
Can the Leader of the House explain why, within 24 hours of the severe weather hitting the south of England some time ago, the Department of the Environment volunteered an oral statement on a Friday morning, when, a full four weeks and more after similar severe weather hit Scotland, the Scottish Office has not made an oral statement? Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early oral statement from the Scottish Office and, in particular, one that will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and myself to point out the deep sense of grievance felt in the Highland region because the damage done in Strathspey and Inverness-shire, in our respective constituencies, has not been acknowledged financially by the Scottish Office?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was offered in response to a private notice question. That is a difference of some importance. On the substance of the matter, all I can do is to draw the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

§ Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider organising another debate on South Africa to give the Opposition spokesmen the opportunity to explain why they try to present Britain as uniquely soft on sanctions when imports from South Africa to Socialist France have increased threefold since 1985? Does that not show a great deal of hypocrisy, and not only on the other side of the Channel?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
My hon. Friend raises an important point. However, he will recall that the subject has been the subject of two statements from the Dispatch Box and one debate in the past 10 days.

§ Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes)
Can my right hon. and learned Friend give a reassurance that the Government will be in a position to ratify the United Nations convention on drug misuse and trafficking before the special demand reduction conference takes place at the beginning of April? Can he tell the House whether necessary legislation will be brought before it to do so?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I cannot give a firm undertaking in that respect. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that the Government are using their best endeavours to do so. The position will depend on the progress of legislation now before Parliament.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend allow an early debate on the 1084 arrogance of those small-minded councillors, whoever and wherever they may be, whose selfish obsession with programmes for which the public does not wish to pay has blinded them to the savage financial impact that their empire building will have on those who are least able to pay?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I am not sure of the need for an early debate on that matter. We hope that the increasingly effective impact of the community charge will bring that message home to voters as well.

§ Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for an early debate on the deplorable state of education in certain parts of London? Is he aware that, in 1988, only 29 pupils obtained A-level German in the 12 inner-London boroughs and that only 137 obtained A-level French? Is that not a scandal, which underlines how the Labour party's education policies have failed the people of London? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the best results come from Conservative-controlled boroughs in London and the worst from Labour-controlled boroughs?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I understand the importance of that point. My hon. Friend will, of course, be aware that the disappearance of the Inner London education authority shortly will fortify the message that he is trying to get across.

§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many hon. Members of all parties—excluding, alas, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)—have taken part in recordings for "Songs of Praise" from St. Margaret's next Sunday? Does he consider that the interest in "Songs of Praise" means that the House is now ready for a full debate on school assemblies and on Christian-centred religious education in schools?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I understand the importance of the subject raised by my hon. Friend, but I am not sure that the performance of the House on that occasion is necessarily the best argument in its favour.

§ Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider having a debate on freeing the remainder of the ports of the United Kingdom? I am thinking of the trust ports, some of which are having great difficulty in operating commercially, because everything has to be done through a private Bill passed through the two Houses. Would it not be a good idea to have a debate on trying to finish what we started, which was privatisation of the ports in the United Kingdom?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
My hon. Friend understands that it is not appropriate for me to comment on private business. However, on the principle that he has raised, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is considering whether to introduce legislation to enable port trusts to be converted into companies. No decisions on that matter have yet been taken.