Business of the House

HC Deb 19 July 1990 vol 176 cc1172-83 3.32 pm

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)

May I ask the Leader of the House what is the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe)

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

MONDAY 23 JULY—Motion for the summer Adjournment.

Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

TUESDAY 24 JULY—Opposition day (18th allotted day, 2nd part). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "Government mismanagement of the economy".

Remaining stages of the Contracts (Applicable Law) Bill [ Lords].

Motion on the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Orders.

Motion on the EEC Merger Control (Consequential Provisions) Regulations.

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

WEDNESDAY 25 JULY—Remaining stages of the Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY 26 JULY—Debates on the motion for the Adjournment.

The House may also be asked to consider any Lords amendments which may be received.

It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that the business of the House for the first week after the summer adjournment will be as follows:

MONDAY 15 OCTOBER—Debate on financial services and the single European market on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

TUESDAY 16 OCTOBER—Progress on remaining stages of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [ Lords].

Motion relating to health authorities regulations.

WEDNESDAY 17 OCTOBER—Completion of remaining stages of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].

Remaining stages of the Caldey Island Bill.

The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

THURSDAY 18 OCTOBER—Debate on a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied.

FRIDAY 19 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, subject for debate to be announced.

Mr. Grocott

Following this week's price rises, first for water and yesterday for telephone bills, may we have an early debate on the way in which privatised monopolies are hitting the consumer? In particular, may we have a debate on the way in which former Cabinet Ministers, well paid, are advising those monopolies?

May we have a debate on the family, particularly following yesterday's crass sense of timing by the Prime Minister, when she made a statement on the family on precisely the day when the Government withdrew from important pledges that they had made, particularly to families with sick and elderly relatives? I hope that the right hon. Lady will be present for that debate because it will be interesting to hear her views.

In regard to poll tax, when shall we have statements on Scotland and Wales? That information should be available —the statements should be made today—and it is unacceptable that those matters are not being dealt with today.

We appreciate why the Government are anxious to rush for the recess, following a year in which they have suffered a steady loss of credibility through by-elections and Cabinet Ministers, but those are important matters and we need time to debate them.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I dare say that the hon. Gentleman will find time to take part in the debate on the motion for the Adjournment. The first topic that he raised will apparently be germane to the motion selected by the Opposition for debate next Tuesday afternoon. I hope that Opposition Members will then pay tribute to the way in which privatised industries—former public monopolies —are achieving rising profits and immense expansions of efficiency, with prices falling in real terms, a welcome change from what preceded the present state of affairs.

As for the family, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman noticed the importance of the speech made yesterday by the Prime Minister. I shall bear in mind his request for a debate on that and the many topics on which my right hon. Friend touched.

As for Scotland and Wales, the Secretaries of State will be making an announcement before the House rises for the summer Adjournment.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes)

Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider holding an urgent debate on the behaviour expected of aspiring statesmen when travelling abroad? Or does he believe that the advice given during that debate would be totally ignored?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I hope that any such debate would emphasise the word "aspiring" rather than "statesmen".

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

Will the Leader of the House clarify what he said about an announcement by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales about community care and the community charge? Does he mean that there will be an opportunity for hon. Members who represent Scottish and Welsh constituencies to question the respective Secretaries of State at the Dispatch Box? If that is not what he means, will he agree to have a debate in the first week we return on the proposals of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which will be more necessary than ever given the way in which Scottish and Welsh hon. Members have been treated this week over community care and the community charge?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The hon. Gentleman need not get so worried about the matter. It is customary for the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland to make statements following a statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment. Each of them will be making statements before the House rises, when they can be questioned in the ordinary way.

Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West)

May I join the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) in asking for an early debate on the subject of the family, because the speech of the Prime Minister will be particularly welcome to those many taxpayers who have been outraged in recent years at having to subsidise the fornication of irresponsible fathers?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

My hon. Friend puts the point with classic and characteristic clarity. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will welcome his support for her speech.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Is not it a fact that because of difficulties with the computer, unless we make a decision on the recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure on questions before July, there is no chance that it will come into operation next Session? Would not it be wise at least to do that business before the end of July?

What has happened to the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests on the delicate issue relating to the Select Committee on Defence? Is it satisfactory that that matter festers and festers?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the last question is one for the Select Committee itself rather than for me. I agree about the importance of making the changes recommended on questions. I hope that the necessary motions will be tabled before the House rises.

Sir William Shelton (Streatham)

Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen early-day motion 1281, entitled "Sexual Offences Bill and Procedure for Private Members' Bills"?

[That this House notes with concern that the Third Reading of the Private Members' Bill the Sexual Offences Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Streatham, was blocked, despite the fact that it received an unopposed Second Reading, was unamended both in Committee and Report Stage, and had the support of both front benches and almost universal support in the House; and therefore urges that the procedures for Private Members' Bills should be reviewed in the light of this occurrence.] Does he agree that the time may have come for a review of the procedure for private Members' Bills? Will he be prepared to look favourably on an amendment embodying this vital legislation to any relevant Home Office legislation in the next Session?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

While I can understand my hon. Friend's interest in the subject of that Bill, I cannot give any undertaking about its attachment to any other legislation that may be before the House next Session. Procedure for private Members' Bills is a matter for the Procedure Committee and I shall draw the matter to its attention.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

May we have a debate next week before the House rises on the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty? The Leader of the House will be aware that the Government signed that treaty. Yet they are blatantly in breach of clause 6, by embarking on the £10 billion Trident nuclear missile programme. In a review conference, non-nuclear nation after non-nuclear nation will denounce this country for breaching the treaty while at the same time expecting non-nuclear countries to remain non-nuclear. Is not that pure hypocrisy and outrageous? Is it not time that we had a debate on that?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I do not accept any of the hon. Gentleman's points. I am surprised that he advanced them this afternoon as he is likely to have a debate on that subject in the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend for an early debate next week on early-day motion 1136, on religious education in maintained schools?

[That this House, recalling that agreed syllabuses for religious education in maintained schools must now statutorily reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian, whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain, believing that religious education in schools should respect the integrity and identity of each religion studied within the agreed syllabus, and should in turn promote respect, understanding, and tolerance for those adhering to different faiths, further believing that thematic teaching approaches which blur the distinctions between religions tend to undermine their coherence and should be avoided, and recognising that for good educational reasons only two, or at the very most three, religions can be studied in any worthwhile depth within the normal constraints imposed on religious education by schools' weekly working timetables, urges the Secretary of State for Education and Science to monitor, assess, and if necessary, correct local education authorities' syllabuses in the field to ensure the proper reflection in those syllabuses of the ideals spelt out above; and further urges the Secretary of State to issue supplementary guidance to local education authorities on the subject.] It would be particularly relevant to Ealing where pupils are required to follow a syllabus which is supposed to be Christian-centred, but which does not mention God, the Bible or Jesus himself and which was drawn up by the Labour council. Urgent action is needed and the House should debate the matter.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I can understand my hon. Friend's concern about the matter if the state of affairs is as he describes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has already received representations about locally agreed syllabuses for religious education and he is considering them.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)

What arrangements is the Leader of the House making to allow the House to vote on whether hospitals should opt out of the national health service and become self-governing trusts? I ask that because in Bradford, where four hospitals are due to opt out of the national health service, Yorkshire regional health authority has concentrated the phoney consultation period during the summer months of July, August and September, knowing that most people will be away on holiday and that most organisations do not meet. There will be little opportunity for any community test of opinion. What does the Leader of the House intend to do to enable the Secretary of State for Health to be told clearly that there is massive opposition in Bradford and elsewhere to hospitals opting out of the national health service?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I do not see why I should take great trouble to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to amplify or to represent his views when they are founded on so many misconceptions. We are concerned not with hospitals opting out of the national health service but with arrangements in accordance with the legislation approved by the House for hospitals to have self-governing status within the health service. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make that well understood in his own constituency.

Sir Robert McCrindle (Brentwood and Ongar)

In view of the confusion surrounding Sunday trading, which has persisted since the failure of Government legislation some years ago, and of yesterday's court decision, is not there an argument for a further debate, to test the opinion of the House, and through it the opinion of the country, on any change to Sunday trading laws—or are we to presume that there will be no further legislative proposals in that regard during the lifetime of this Parliament?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

It is 30 years almost to the day since I first published an article on that very topic under the simple heading, "Set the shopper free." It seems to have been a long time maturing. My hon. Friend raises a point of concern, but a single debate is not likely to resolve the areas of continuing disagreement between the various parties. If it were possible to secure agreement, the Government would certainly be willing to give sympathetic consideration to making legislative progress.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1275, signed by 91 hon. Members:

[That this House expresses its extreme concern at the apparent intention of the Hong Kong authorities to continue trading in elephant ivory after the reservation ends at midnight on 17th July; recalls the many undertakings given by Ministers that the trade would end on the appointed day; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to keep their promises to the House by instructing the Hong Kong authorities to cease all trade and not to defy the CITES ban.]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall the concern expressed by hon. Members about the loophole that the Hong Kong authorities were clearly intending to exploit, whereby the trade in ivory could continue under the guise of personal effects after the reservation ended at midnight on 17 July. Is the Leader of the House able to say whether that loophole has been closed? If it has not, may we have an early debate on that important subject?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The hon. Gentleman's interest in that topic is strong, so I am not surprised that he has returned to that theme. As was made clear by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office in a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), The Hong Kong Government have already enacted legislation to implement the CITES ban on international commercial trade in ivory. The legislation will come into effect when our reservation is withdrawn on 18 July 1990 … Hong Kong legislation now fully reflects the CITES convention." —[Official Report, 18 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 553.]

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

As the laws that we pass in this country apply both to Scotland and to the United Kingdom, and given that we are so closely allied as to have in the United Kingdom a Lord Chancellor who is a Scotsman, will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the Attorney-General, when he comes to speak on the Courts and Legal Services Bill next Wednesday, why the unacceptable parts of the proposed law reforms are to be dropped in Scotland but not in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I shall certainly bring that point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will recall the premise of his own question and that the arrangements for the constitution of this country make provision for different laws to be made for Scotland than for other parts of the United Kingdom. They may make legitimate debating points, but it would be remarkable if they were always coincident in every respect.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

Will the Leader of the House spend some time during the recess thinking about and walking carefully around this building, with early-day motion 1307 in his hand?

[That his House believes that the Palace of Westminster should be made fully accessible for people with disabilities; calls for study to be made of the necessary improvements to the entrance, toilets, telephone and refreshment facilities and the installation of induction loops where appropriate; and further believes that visitors to the Palace of Westminster should not have to suffer the indignity of waiting outside to be admitted, being unable to get any refreshments without the presence of a member.]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman first review the appalling provision for disabled people who visit or work in this building, and the lack of wheelchair ramps, induction loops, and documents written in Braille? Many people also experience difficulty hearing properly from the Floor of the Chamber and the Strangers Gallery. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider also the lack of facilities for visitors, who in the winter months are forced to queue outside in the rain and are unable to obtain any refreshments unless they are accompanied by a Member of Parliament.

The facilities here are, frankly, archaic and a disgrace to the country. It ill behoves the House to pass legislation requiring adequate facilities for the disabled in public buildings throughout the country if such facilities are not provided here [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] This happens to be a very important matter. As the Leader of the House has not announced a subject for debate on 19 October, perhaps he will bring forward proposals as the subject of such a debate on that Friday morning.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The hon. Gentleman has the almost unique capacity to make a significant, important and worthwhile case sound almost positively unattractive. All the matters that he has raised have been and are almost continuously the subject of consideration and arrangements have been improved recently as a result of recommendations made by the Services Committee. The arrangements under consideration by Sir Robin Ibbs may help us to improve the way in which we address some matters. It is also necessary to acknowledge that in a building of this kind and antiquity it is not possible to make every change that we might desire for the benefit of the disabled because of the sheer physical construction of the building. But the hon. Gentleman's case deserves to be considered more sympathetically than he suggests.

Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight)

Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider arranging a debate on the structure of local government, particularly as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment yesterday announced his response to the Boundary Commission's proposal for a unitary authority on the Isle of Wight, stating that he acknowledged the force of the arguments but that there was no prospect of primary legislation during this Session of Parliament? However, I understand today that the deputy leaders of Isle of Wight county council have announced that they are to seek a private Bill to put that proposal into effect, and it would be helpful if the House had an opportunity to discuss the restructuring of local government into unitary authorities throughout the United Kingdom.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

My hon. Friend's constituency interests may well be represented by the private Bill that is now in prospect, but I do not know how widely shared would be his enthusiasm for a far-ranging, comprehensive reconstruction of local government. I suspect that there would be limited enthusiasm for that. At all events, his request for a debate will have been heard by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment who is sitting beside me.

Mr. Merlyn Rees (Morley and Leeds, South)

Will the Leader of the House follow up the point made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field)? One hears that the Local Government Boundary Commission is making the most incredible proposals for changes between district councils. Not only will they have profound effects on parliamentary constituencies, which is one thing, but the commission seems to be erecting its own ideas about the divisions between districts—for example, using motorways —and ignoring people's feelings. May we have a debate because there will be great anger in the House at reports coming from the centre of London, which do not understand what is going on outside?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I know from my experience that it is important that the Local Government Boundary Commission should be sensitive to particularly expressed local anxieties and should not place too much reliance on its own inspired approach to topics. In that spirit, I shall bring the right hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for him to pass on to the commission.

Mr. Chris Butler (Warrington, South)

Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time next week to discuss the activities of the Anti-Poll Tax Union, one of the leaders of which, from my constituency, has called for the magistrates to be kidnapped?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

Such a matter may well deserve to be investigated by the law enforcement authorities. It is clear that that union's activities are contributing to additional costs for fellow citizens to the disadvantage of our society.

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)

Can the Leader of the House give a commitment that the two new Committees that will replace the Select Committee on Social Services will be up and running at the beginning of the new Session?

If he cannot give such a commitment now, will he be able to do so in the form of a letter to the Committee before we rise for the summer recess?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I hesitate to give a precise commitment on timing now, but the hon. Gentleman knows that we are committed to the division of the Committee and I shall make sure that my answer is communicated in an appropriate form as soon as possible.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South)

Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for an early debate on the Post Office's annual report and the poor service that it provides in north-west London? Does he agree that such difficulties are more likely to be defeated by the introduction of competition than by the maintenance of a state monopoly?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I understand the philosophy that appeals to my hon. Friend and I shall bring his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)

Is the Leader of the House aware that missing from the Report stage of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill when we consider it in the first week after the recess will be the legislative proposal to reduce substantially the period of consideration in divorce actions because Opposition Members on the Bill's Standing Committee forced the Secretary of State for Scotland to drop it? Would the Leader of the House like to thank those Opposition Members because, had not that happened, the Prime Minister would have been in the ludicrous position of saying yesterday that there should be an extended period for consideration in divorce cases, yet legislating for a shorter period?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

Many factors need to be considered on such a matter, including the fact that that part of the legislation was originally proposed by the Scottish Law Commission. No doubt the House will be ready to deal with the Bill on Report.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay)

Can my right hon. and learned Friend find time to discuss early-day motion 1247, which was originally tabled by me, but which is now supported by my most distinguished hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving)?

[That this House notes that the phenomenal success of the House of Commons gift shop has nevertheless produced congestion in the access to two of the Commons's most popular restaurants, the Members' and the Strangers' cafeterias; and urges the re-location of this popular facility within Westminster Hall, where shopping facilities have traditionally existed, and which is conveniently placed at the end of the line of route usually taken in conducted tours by honourable Members' constituents.]

The motion calls for the gift shop to be relocated from the downstairs corridor to Westminster Hall. Its phenomenal success in its present location prevents the progress of people who are in pursuit of pies and Pepsis in the restaurant at the end of the corridor.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am sure that the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the success of the gift shop, which contributes substantially to the trading success of the Refreshment Department.

Sensible questions need to be considered about its location, and I shall see that that is done in the context of the space audit for the whole House.

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

Has there yet been any discussion in the House of Commons Commission about the wages paid to people in the Refreshment Department? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept the proposition, which I put months ago, that hon. Members should pay more for their food so that people in the Dining Rooms can be paid more?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The hon. Gentleman will recollect that the Member responsible for answering on behalf of the Commission, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), answered a question on that topic on Monday and drew attention to the well-established arrangements for determining the pay of those who work for the House.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. In view of the pressure of time, hon. Members should ask questions only about the business that has been announced. I shall call those who were here for the business statement.

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South)

That brings me back to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. I am somewhat puzzled by the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in relation to the fact that it seems clear that there is a distinction in principle between what is happening in Scotland and what is happening in England. I am aware that there is a difference between Scottish and English law.

Mr. Speaker

Order. This must be about next week's business.

Mr. Porter

It is indeed, Mr. Speaker. The Government have accepted that in Scotland the lenders, that is the banks and building societies, cannot represent the borrower, although that is not the case in England. May we have an early debate on that, either tied up with a debate on English law or within the context of the Scottish Bill, I care not which? The principle is exactly the same.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The debates in the first week of our return from the recess should provide an opportunity for those issues to be raised.

Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone)

Would the Leader of the House consider the fact that between now and our return from the recess local authorities will try to come to terms with poll tax capping and will have assessed the damage to local authority services and to our constituents? Does he agree that it would be wise to have a debate as soon as we return so that the House can look at the assessment of that damage and at any litigation that has taken place as a result of the statement later today by the Secretary of State for the Environment?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I do not propose to anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement.

Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster)

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that any alternative to the Anglo-Irish Agreement must have the consent of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland? Bearing in mind that criterion and the fact that the Anglo-Irish Agreement as at present enforced does not have the consent of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland, is not it about time that the House had a full-scale debate on the agreement?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The House had an opportunity to consider closely related questions during the full-day's debate on Northern Ireland the week before last.

Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)

Will the Leader of the House be more than his usual charitable self, and tell us whether on any—and preferably on which—of the four days available for debate next week the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a statement on community care and the proposals for the community charge, or will we have to accept a written answer to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)? If we are to discuss how to run a business properly, could we have a little more respect for hon. Members, especially those in opposition, and have some clear answers to our questions?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

For the third time this afternoon —and it may be that on the two previous occasions the hon. Gentleman was talking too much to listen—

Mr. Douglas

Come on.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

Once again, the hon. Gentleman cannot stop talking long enough to listen to my answer. I say for the third time that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be making a statement on that very topic—

Mr. Douglas

When?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

Before the House rises.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

May I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) for legislation to enable local authorities to become unitary authorities—not to force a uniform change of local government across the country, but to allow areas that wish to choose a form of unitary authority to do so? There is a great deal of sense in that.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

Without commenting on the case for unitary authorities, I acknowledge that there has always been a good case for a more discriminating and variable pattern of approach to local government reform, of the sort originally available under the Local Government Boundary Commission, but which disappeared towards the end of the 1950s.

Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield)

Following last night's decision on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, supported by 200 Conservative Members, and the dramatic effect that that will have on the coalfield communities, will the Leader of the House find time before the House rises for its summer recess for a full and frank debate on the needs of those communities?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I do not anticipate an opportunity arising for a debate of that sort, but the Bill has been extensively debated in the House over many months.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

Reverting to the earlier question on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which will be debated in the week that we return, my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that loyal supporters of the Prime Minister and her policies were also opposed to the divorce proposals. They were not Government proposals, but those recommended by an outside body. Have not we saved the House a great many problems by having those proposals removed?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I dare say that that point can be made during the debate in the week that we return.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

The Leader of the House outlined the timetable for the further deliberation on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. May I point out that, as a member of the Standing Committee, I have been deeply concerned about the poor management of the Bill? It has meant that four new clauses that I tabled, which had as their objective the better protection of children in sexual or physical abuse cases, will not now be heard. Does he agree that we need a debate on the protection of children when they are giving evidence in such cases?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

It is not my business to agree on the merit of that proposal, but there will be up to two full days for discussion of various aspects of the matter when the House returns in October.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

When the Leader of the House replies to the Adjournment debate on Monday, will he refer to the article in the Prime Minister's favourite tabloid on Monday of this week, which suggested that he was about to be sacked?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The question should be about the business next week. Please concentrate on that.

Mr. Skinner

Next week, the Leader of the House will be answering the Adjournment debate. I am asking whether he intends to reply to the article in the Prime Minister's favourite tabloid. I want to give him some advice. If ex-Cabinet Ministers are sacked, they obtain fewer directorships than those who leave on their own accord for family reasons. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to get a directorship, he should go now.

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is not about business next week.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I shall answer the debate and not newspaper articles, least of all those that attract the attention of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

After visiting Glenfield district hospital in my constituency this morning, I ask the Leader of the House to arrange for a debate on the disastrous crumbling of the national health service in Leicestershire, where wards are closing, staff are struggling to provide services and some patients are waiting more than two years for an appointment with a consultant. As that hospital has a reduced budget of less than £26 million and it needs £3.6 million just for maintenance, surely that scandalous situation should be debated in the House, where hon. Members of all parties take exactly the same view.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The hon. and learned Gentleman knows, because he has raised the matter on more than one occasion, that the allocation of money to the Leicestershire health district is a matter for Trent regional health authority. The district received significantly more money this year, amounting to a real terms increase in its budget of nearly 3 per cent. I have no doubt that he and/or some of his colleagues will find an opportunity to return to the matter in the Adjournment debate next week.