Business of the House

HC Deb 08 March 1990 vol 168 cc1003-22 3.31 pm

Several Hon. Members

On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I will take business questions first.

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I said that I would take business questions first.

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)

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

Mr. Nellist

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I shall take points of order after business questions, in the usual way.

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——

Mr. Nellist

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I remind the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)—he knows this well —that we are still in the middle of Question Time. I am now taking business questions. I will take points of order——

Mr. Nellist

It is about the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker

I will take points of order, about the Prime Minister or anyone else, after business questions.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 12 MARCH—Until seven o'clock motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order.

Afterwards motion on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order.

Motion on the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order which is a consolidation measure.

Proceedings on the Capital Allowances Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.

TUESDAY 13 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

Motion on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order

WEDNESDAY 14 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

THURSDAY 15 MARCH—Until seven o'clock completion of remaining stages of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

Consideration of any Lords amendments to the Coal Industry Bill which may be received.

Motion to amend schedule 1 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.

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

FRIDAY 16 MARCH—Private Members' motions.

MONDAY 19 MARCH—Second Reading of the War Crimes Bill.

Dr. Cunningham

Is the Leader of the House aware that on Monday evening his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy placed in the Library a copy of a departmental minute seeking to indemnify Nuclear Electric in the sum of £2,500 million? It is made clear in the privatisation Act—the Electricity Act 1989—that any sum in excess of £1,000 million that is so used must be debated and approved by the House. That is a large sum of public money. Will the Leader of the House assure us that the matter will be debated before any confirmation of the decision of the Secretary of State for Energy can be approved?

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the widespread astonishment and anger, not only in the House but outside it, about the report on the House of Fraser/Harrods scandal? Is it not clearly inadequate that Parliament should have only a brief period—about 30 minutes—to discuss the matter, on a statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Is it not in everyone's interest—not least in the interest of the Government, who commissioned the inquiry—that these matters should be fully debated in Parliament, and may we have an early opportunity to debate them in Government time? I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of the support for that proposition on both sides of the House.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the activities of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the chairman of the Conservative party, in relation to poll tax? Will he arrange for the chairman of the Conservative party —instead of erecting bogus figures about responsibility —to come to the House and bring with him his 12 Cabinet colleagues, of whom the Leader of the House is one, who represent constituencies in Conservative counties, where in every case the poll tax is hugely in excess of the Government's recommended level?

Why do the Government blame Labour councils when, under Cabinet Ministers' very noses, these huge poll tax figures are being set? Can I say—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] May I ask the Leader of the House to explain why in Tandridge, in his own constituency of Surrey, East, which has a Tory council, the poll tax is £79 above the Government's recommended level?

Hon. Members

Come on.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I was on the point of interrupting the hon. Gentleman, so perhaps I may do so now. Business questions do not provide the opportunity to make a statement.

Dr. Cunningham

I am coming to the question, Mr. Speaker.

Why, in Mole Valley, is the poll tax £85 above the Government's level and why in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Defence, is it £93—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must ask business questions.

Dr. Cunningham

My question is simply this, Mr. Speaker. As, in the face of public outcry, so many Conservative Members appear to have changed their minds about supporting the poll tax, will the Leader of the House organise an early debate so that we can vote on the matter again and throw the whole thing out?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I have no intention of arranging an urgent debate about that, although if such a debate took place it would provide us with yet another opportunity to ask Labour Members why 28 of their number are trying to incite people not to pay a tax put in place by the House.

Mr. Nellist

It is 31, not 28.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

That makes it three times worse.

Such a debate would also provide us with an opportunity to make it plain that, under Labour councils, taxes will inevitably be higher than under Conservative-controlled councils.

Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's more serious points. He inquired about the electricity industry. The departmental minute deposited by my right hon. Friend gives notice to Parliament that it is his intention to bring forward, if necessary, an order to increase the current limit of £1 billion for liabilities under schedule 12 of the Electricity Act 1989 to £2.5 billion. As you, Mr. Speaker, made clear yesterday when this matter was raised, the order would be subject to parliamentary approval.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement yesterday about the report on the House of Fraser. I note the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate. Clearly there is no opportunity for a debate next week. Moreover, I understand that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry is currently examining the investigative powers of the Department under the Companies Act 1989. It may well be thought appropriate to await its report before considering a debate. In any event, the matter can be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)

May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend for an early debate on early-day motion 659?

[That this House views with grave concern the serious allegations made against the leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers by the Daily Mirror and Thames Television Cook Report Special on 5th March that moneys from foreign countries were accepted in order to prolong a national industrial dispute and that one of those same countries, namely Libya, was at the same time supporting terrorism within the United Kingdom; notes that allegations of fraud and embezzlement were made to the effect that some of these moneys were used by officers and trustees of the National Union of Mineworkers for their own personal gain and that allegations of dishonesty were made against officers of the National Union of Mineworkers still in office; calls upon Mr. Attorney General to refer all these allegations forthwith to the Director of Public Prosecutions; and requests and requires assurances from those honourable Members still sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers that none of the money they receive in election expenses is derived from Libyan or similarly tainted sources.]

It concerns the National Union of Mineworkers and allegations made by a former Labour Member of the House, Mr. Robert Maxwell, that £5 million came from the terrorist regime of Libya shortly after WPC Yvonne Fletcher was shot dead by the same people, and that the money was then misappropriated by union officials. May we also in that debate examine why no Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), have said a word about this scandal when they would be so quick to do so if it concerned a City institution?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

As my hon. Friend understands, the investigation of matters of that kind is, in the first instance, a matter for the police service rather than for either of the Law Officers' Departments. Anyone in possession of evidence to support the point he has made should, of course, place it in the hands of the police, who will be very ready to investigate the allegations. I am sure that the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for having brought the matter to its attention.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing that the War Crimes Bill is to be introduced so swiftly. May I ask him whether we are to have a statement on the setting up of a special investigative unit such as the units that have been created in Canada, Australia and the United States so that justice may be done, so that those who are guilty and against whom there is sufficient weight of evidence may be brought to trial and those against whom there is not such evidence may be freed of anxiety?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his appreciation of the prospective legislation. It will, of course, be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to answer questions of that kind in detail in consideration of the Bill, but the hon. and learned Gentleman can be sure that appropriate arrangements will be made to ensure that the most effective investigations can be undertaken with the objectives that he has in mind.

Mr. Robert McCrindle (Brentwood and Ongar)

In view of the recent Consumers Association report revealing malpractices by some estate agents, linked to the feeling that investor protection may not necessarily be working out in precisely the way in which the Financial Services Act 1986 intended, would my right hon. and learned Friend consider the possibility of initiating, not a narrow debate on the House of Fraser, but a much wider debate taking account of these concerns?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am glad that my hon. Friend has returned to the House, which we all welcome. The report gives us an opportunity of broadening the field of inquiry. I shall draw the point that he raises to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Frank Field.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

rose——

Mr. Speaker

I am sorry if there was some confusion, but the House should know that I always give precedence at the next opportunity to those who were called last at the previous business question time. I thought that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was rising.

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)

Following the statement by the Leader of the House last week on the future of the Social Services Committee, may I ask him whether he has had a chance to consult again more widely on the desirability of splitting the Committee so that it more accurately reflects Government Departments? May I invite him to make a further statement?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The matter has been raised through the usual channels. I am considering how best to take the matter further, and I shall seek to inform the House in due course.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the arguments for dividing the Health and Social Security Departments apply equally to the case for dividing the Select Committees responsible for monitoring them, and that there is concern on both sides of the House about the delay in making this change? It is important that the departmental structure should be maintained, not least in this area, which accounts for almost half the total of Government expenditure and where the Committees have an onerous task. Will my right hon. and learned Friend see whether he can do something about this matter next week? The delay is a matter of concern.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

Even in the face of this formidably bipartisan combination of pressure, including the energetic support of my right hon. Friend, I do not think that I can promise that there will be a reaction next week. I take note, however, of the points that have been made.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Is the Leader of the House afraid of having a debate about the House of Fraser because of the connections with the Sultan of Brunei? Does he recall that in 1985, when the pound was worth $1.08 and sinking through the floor, the sultan found £5 billion to prop up the pound? As a result, the Government decided to lay off the House of Fraser and its surrogates, the Fayed brothers. That is why we have the cover-up. As for the Libyan connection, the only one that I am aware of during the miners' strike was the millions of barrels of oil that came from Libya to prop up the Tory Government.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The hon. Gentleman is nothing if not an expert on diversion. He should be ready to tell the House a great deal more about the Libyan connection in the strike. We shall look forward to hearing from him. If the publication of a report as extensive and as critical as that which the House discussed yesterday is a cover-up operation, the hon. Gentleman is even more extraordinary than I think he is.

Mr. Kenneth Warren (Hastings and Rye)

Delighted as I am to acknowledge my right hon. and learned Friend's acceptance of the work of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on company investigations, the terms of reference of the Committee do not include, nor are they intended to include, the study of any particular company and its problems. As I feel sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would like to have more time to give us the background of his opinion, I commend to my right hon. and learned Friend the suggestion that a debate would be right and proper.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

Obviously I take account of the proposition that my hon. Friend has put before the House, without being able to make any commitment.

Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill)

Following the reply which the Leader of the House made on 26 February about the funding of political parties in the emerging democracies in eastern Europe, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he has had the discussions which he promised to have with the Foreign Secretary about the nature of the funding, the timetabling of the resources and the methods by which moneys can be paid to the parties in eastern Europe?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I understand that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), is undertaking, or will undertake, consultations with the various parties about the best way of taking the matter forward in pursuit of the sort of objective which is shared by both sides of the House.

Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham)

Can my right hon. and learned Friend find time to debate the fact that this week the Liberal-controlled Richmond upon Thames borough council opened a new town hall that has been built at a cost of £12 million? Over the next 20 years it will add £10 per head per year to the community charge. Are not my constituents and their Member of Parliament right to protest about this reckless and indefensible civic extravagance?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having focused so precisely the grounds on which he and his constituents are objecting to characteristic Liberal extravagance.

Mr. John McWilliam (Blaydon)

Will the Leader of the House reconsider his replies about a debate on the House of Fraser? The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) made a reasonable point about how limited the inquiry of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry will be. The task that faces the House cannot adequately be dealt with in a statement. Nothing more nor less than the probity of British business is at stake, and we should have an early debate.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I said in answer to the first question on the subject that the matter can be discussed through the usual channels. It is always open to the Opposition to select the matter as a topic for one of their debates.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley)

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give further consideration to the possibility of a debate on the affairs of the NUM, not so much just so that the House can get to the bottom of the matter, as to give Opposition Members the opportunity to explain why they are suddenly so eager to dump a man to whom not so long ago they were all busy paying court as a great hero of Socialist labour? Is not this a possibly unique example of the rats trying to throw one of their own kind overboard?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

My hon. Friend has put the matter extremely compactly. I shall see whether any opportunity is likely to arise for the further discussion of that interesting insight.

Mr. Donald Coleman (Neath)

Is the Leader of the House aware of the anxiety felt in Wales about the unclearness of the situation with regard to the announcement concerning the Secretary of State for Wales, especially in view of the breadth of the portfolio of the Welsh Office, which includes health, education, housing and local government? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made before the Welsh Grand Committee meets next week so that we may have a clear picture of the position in regard to his right hon. Friend?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I see no reason for any such statement. The hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. Friend's predecessor as Secretary of State for Wales also gave substantial advance notice of the likelihood of his departure from that office. That did not prevent him from fulfilling the duties of that office with great distinction, as he did throughout his time there. He has been followed with equal distinction by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State, and he will continue to be an excellent Secretary of State until the time comes for him to leave the office.

Mr. William Powell (Corby)

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the substantial public interest and concern about the revelations on funds paid to NUM sources during the strike some years ago? Is he further aware that that is a legitimate matter of concern to our constituents, upon which they expect the House to cast the maximum possible light? In those circumstances, will my right hon. and learned Friend bring forward a resolution next week to establish a Select Committee with the power to take evidence and call witnesses and so get to the bottom of the matter, which remains desperately unclear?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

My hon. Friend adds to the clarity with which the House is being informed about a matter which clearly deserves to be followed closely.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

Would it not have been more dignified for the House last Friday if one of the main contributions to talking out the Bill that seeks to help the victims of nuclear tests had some from someone other than the Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Minister whose Department seems to want to dump the Bill without debate? May we have a statement next week on the humane and important Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay)? Is there anything that the Leader of the House can do to facilitate consideration of the Bill?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The Bill has so far taken its place in the ordinary way for consideration along with other private Members' Bills. I see no prospect of it receiving any different treatment from other Bills in the queue.

Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton)

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the War Crimes Bill, which I support, raises some of the gravest issues that could possibly come before the House of major changes in British justice? Is it not important that the Bill should be dealt with in a non-partisan way and that there should be a free vote?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the issues raised in the Bill. He will recollect that when it was considered in embryo, as it were, before Christmas, the House had a free vote, and that will continue to be the position.

Mr. Nellist

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement later today by the chairman of the Tory party because some hon. Members have been smeared by this disgraceful press release, yesterday, to which several hon. Members and the Prime Minister have referred today? Is he aware that the All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation, while it understands that tempers can boil over when millions of families will be pauperised by the poll tax, does not organise, advocate or condone premeditated violence of the kind that has taken place recently.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman also aware that what has really upset him today is the news this morning, based on official figures, that 42.5 per cent. of people liable for the tax in Glasgow have still not paid it after 11 months? When those people get 10 million reinforcements from England and Wales, the Prime Minister's flagship will be turned into a Titanic.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The hon. Gentleman's question does not relate to the business of the House, but it gives me the opportunity of commenting yet again on the way in which so many Opposition Members—the number seems to increase with every report—are encouraging people to refuse to pay a tax which has been lawfully and effectively put in place by the House. That is the matter for concern, together with the violence of the opposition to the tax which has been generated.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us thought yesterday that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was too languid and laid back about the Al-Fayed/Harrods report? Does he not also accept that for the reputation of this country and the City there can be no neutrals as far as fraud is concerned? Does he also agree that the idea that the 750-page report should be sent to a Select Committee, when the Chairman of the Select Committee has said, "It ain't me, guy," is not on? The report is before the House. I believe that the country and the City will demand that there is a debate on it in Government time. If we can debate the conduct of one Member for six hours, why can we not spare three hours to talk about the conduct of these discreditable and loathsome creatures?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I have already said that the possibility of a debate on that topic must be discussed through the usual channels. I have taken note of the fact that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have urged upon me the case for such a debate. I can do no more than that.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)

Does the Leader of the House recall that a couple of weeks ago I asked for a statement about the threat to the jobs of some 2,000 workers at the James Seddon clothing factories, including some 1,000 jobs in the Falkirk district? Now that that company has gone into receivership and more than 100 people have been made redundant in Denny and Falkirk, will the Leader of the House urge the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement or, more important, to take urgent action to intervene to stop what could be one of the most serious threats of redundancy to affect Falkirk district for many years?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

While there can be no presumption that the Secretary of State can or should intervene in every matter of this kind, I know that he will be following very closely the events referred to by the hon. Member, and I shall bring to his attention the matter the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Sir Hal Miller (Bromsgrove)

Will my right hon. and learned Friend try to provide time at an early opportunity either in the context of the EEC or of industry to discuss the moves which were taking place in the Commission even on Tuesday during our debate on the economy, whereby Japanese firms building cars in Britain with a British content will have those cars deducted from their quota, whereas cars built in America by the same Japanese firms will not have them deducted? How are we to view the Common Market and the operation of the single market if, as a member state, we are to be discriminated against in this fashion in favour of a non-member state? That is a serious question for people in the midlands in particular, and we want a robust statement of Government policy on that issue. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will seek to provide an opportunity for it.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The only reason for our resisting demands for a debate on that subject is that the Government's position—and, indeed, that of the House —is already clear. It would be quite improper for British cars produced by British workers in Britain to be treated differently from other cars produced in the Community. There is no case whatever for treating such cars as though they were produced in Japan.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The case is being pressed energetically in the Community by all my right hon. Friends, and is receiving substantial support from a number of partner nations. It is important that that case should prevail.

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)

Will the Leader of the House consider the question of education in the London borough of Newham, where a huge increase in population is projected as a result of docklands developments? As he knows, when similar circumstances arose in the new towns, special arrangements were put in place to finance the infrastructure, including schools, and I feel that such arrangements should be introduced in Newham. Deputations from the borough have been unable to persuade Education Ministers, however: they say that the money will be allocated when the population is there.

Building schools involves a lead time of five years. Unless something is done, people moving into the brave new world of docklands will find that their children are bussed out of the area for five years before the schools are built. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate so that the matter can be properly discussed?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The House will certainly take note of the hon. Gentleman's commendation of the prosperity and successful expansion in and around his constituency that has resulted from Government initiatives. We welcome his support, and I shall certainly draw the aspect that he has mentioned to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Sir Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)

We are all very grateful that at last there is to be a debate on war crimes, but is not a war crime a war crime wherever it is committed? Surely the agenda should not be confined to German territory which might well have been occupied temporarily by the Russians.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The scope of the Bill—which my hon. Friend will be able to study before long—has been shaped after careful consideration, in the light of the report by Messrs. Hetherington and Chalmers. If my hon. Friend wishes to suggest that that scope be extended, he can no doubt do so when the time comes to debate the Bill.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Will the Leader of the House give further consideration to the possibility of a debate on the poll tax? Does he recognise the growing anger and resentment that is felt all over the country and is reflected in our postbags? I entirely repudiate any violence perpetrated by a few outsiders; Opposition Members have no time for violence of any kind—[Interruption.] I am surprised that I should ever be accused of condoning violence. Why does the Leader of the House not recognise that the tax is the most unpopular that has been introduced for centuries, and that hundreds of thousands of people all over the country—many in Conservative constituencies—are expressing their views and will continue to do so? Now is the time for a debate —in Government time.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

By definition, the matter has been debated in the House many times. The tax is in place as a result of the very recent passage of the legislation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be supported by more of his colleagues in his condemnation of the violence. I also hope that he will deliver the message to his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who was reported yesterday as saying that the violence had been generated by the actions of the Government. That is precisely the wrong way in which to condemn violence.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)

May I revert to the question of the War Crimes Bill? My right hon. and learned Friend's answer was not entirely clear to some of us. Will he give us an absolute assurance that there will be a free vote?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I cannot speak for the Opposition —but I see hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench nodding. A silent intervention has been allowed to inform me: there will be a free vote on both sides of the House.

Mr. Eric F. Heifer (Liverpool, Walton)

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and those of my hon. Friends who have asked for a debate on the poll tax? Many of us are totally opposed to the use of violence, but the chairman of the Tory party, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), has suggested that the violence is the result of the activities of Militant Tendency. Some of us have had, unfortunately, to live with members of Militant Tendency for many years. However, whatever criticism we may make of them, we have never found that they support violence.

[HON. MEMBERS: Oh.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has the right to express his opinion about the matter.

Mr. Heifer

Therefore, I ask the right hon. amd learned Gentleman to provide time for a debate on the issue so that those of us who have known members of Militant Tendency for quite a long time can express our opinions and talk of our experience. Does he not agree that the most militant people on the picket lines at the moment are those people who on television have said that they voted Tory in the past and that they are now ashamed of having done so?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The House can find ample opportunities to debate the matter, should it wish to do so, as it has done on many occasions. According to my experience, not far from the hon. Gentleman's constituency the most alarming demonstrations that I have ever encountered were on Merseyside, when the demonstrators had substantial support from members of Militant Tendency.

Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many Conservative Members would not be afraid of a debate on the community charge? Those who deliberately encourage the flouting of the law by non-payment and encourage violence at council meetings when the community charge is to be set support a party that intends to raise local authority expenditure by up to 25 per cent., thus causing hardship for those who have to pay the community charge. It could amount to an increase of as much as £100 per person in Lancashire. Therefore, we should welcome the opportunity to place the blame where it should lie.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for offering support for that proposition. He is right to draw attention to the extent to which high community charge levels are being imposed overwhelmingly by Labour-controlled councils.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)

Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the threat to public order from the introduction of the poll tax? Does he not agree that such a debate would allow the Government to understand that people in all political parties—including Conservative Members of Parliament, Conservative councillors and people of no political party —are protesting against the hated poll tax? Would it not provide an opportunity for the Prime Minister, the chairman of the Conservative party and the Leader of the House either to substantiate or to withdraw the serious allegation that 28 Labour Members of Parliament, including myself, are promoting the disruption and disorder?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The Government of course support the right of people to demonstrate peacefully in respect of or against any action by the Government, or anyone else. However, we do not approve of the action taken by the 28 —or was it 31?—Labour Members of Parliament urging resistance to the payment of a tax that had lawfully been put in place by this House. As the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) boasted not many minutes ago, no fewer than 31 Labour Members of Parliament are seeking to resist the payment of the tax.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks (Wolverhampton, North-East)

Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for an urgent debate on the holding of ballots for the purpose of electing trade union executives? I raise this matter on behalf of one of my constituents, Mr. Alf Mycock. He is a self-confessed Labour moderate who has turned to me for help, and for the help of the House, because he failed with his own general secretary, Mr. Ron Todd, despite the fact that Mr. Mycock had evidence of ballot rigging and serious complaints. He is very concerned, as we should be, in the interests of the general public, because their money was used for the holding of the ballot.

I ask for a debate for the simple reason that Mr. Ron Todd failed to involve the police. I am pleased to say that the police have now reacted to my constituent's request, and I am sure that the House will wish to debate the issue because public money was involved, and we should look to the House to take appropriate action on behalf of my constituent and the public.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am not sure whether I can arrange an early debate on that topic, but the way in which my hon. Friend has put the matter so clearly and comprehensively will serve to put it on record. It deserves to be investigated.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. In the interests of time and the subsequent debate, may I remind hon. Members that the object of business questions is to ask for debates next week and not to make speeches that might properly be made in those debates.

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

Does the Leader of the House recognise that the casual indifference that he is showing to the problem of low wages in the Refreshment Department of the House of Commons is causing deep concern among staff? May we have a debate on the matter, particularly in light of the fact that many people working in the Refreshment Department will have to pay poll tax bills of perhaps as much as £600, depending on where they live in London? They cannot afford it. They want action.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

Like other members of the House of Commons Commission, I am aware of some anxiety about the rates of pay of some of the industrial staff in the Refreshment Department, but I am assured that basic wage rates do not compare too unfavourably with those in the catering industry in general. Moreover, Refreshment Department staff now benefit from a non-contributory pension scheme, a four-and-a-half-day basic working week and comparatively lengthy holidays. Of course, the Commission takes account of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but he should not continue to present the matter in such a fashion.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)

On the War Crimes Bill, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the principle of the English common law, affirmed as recently as Tuesday by the divisional court in the matter concerning the actions of police officers at Wapping, that delay in bringing a prosecution making a fair trial impossible is an abuse of the process and will not be tolerated by English courts? If that applies to a five-year delay, how can Parliament possibly authorise overruling that rule when the delay has been 50 years?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

My hon. Friend draws attention to one of the points which will require careful consideration in the debate on the Bill. No doubt he will wish to take account of the fact that countries in the Anglo-Saxon common law tradition, such as the United States, which has set aside the Limitation Acts, and Australia and Canada, have legislated in respect of such crimes, notwithstanding the point that my hon. Friend makes.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

I welcome the fact that there is to be a two-and-a-half-day debate on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that tomorrow the Government will not object to the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) proposing that primary legislation of that nature for Northern Ireland can be dealt with in this House, because the community aspect of the White Paper in Northern Ireland has not yet been properly published?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until tomorrow to see how matters transpire.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West)

Will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider initiating a debate on the community charge next week, so that the Secretary of State can explain to the House whether he is being even-handed in his grant treatment of different London boroughs, such as Lambeth and Wandsworth, and why, despite the fact that the amount going to every adult in Lambeth is £324 more than the sum going to every adult in Wandsworth, the community charge in Labour-controlled Lambeth is nearly four times as much as that in Wandsworth?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

My right hon. Friend would relish the opportunity to explain that. In the meantime, he will be grateful to my hon. Friend for having made an important point very clearly.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)

When do the Government, having been seized of the problem for the best part of 10 years, intend to fulfil their promise to introduce legislation to deal with the problems of maritime archaelogy? It is some time since they received the recommendations of the joint nautical archaelogy policy committee.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The Government may have been seized of the problem for 10 years; I am afraid I have not. However, I shall look into the matter in the light of the manner in which the hon. Gentleman has expressed his case.

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde)

Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to try to find an opportunity for the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to come to the House and rebut the scurrilous attack on my local authority—the Conservative-controlled Fylde council—by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)? In an article in The Times, the hon. Gentleman suggested that the Fylde council had exceeded the Government's target by £110. That is not true; the figure is actually £7. Excessive expenditure in Lancashire is down to Labour-controlled Lancashire county council.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking yet another opportunity to make clear the spendthrift policies of Labour-controlled Lancashire county council.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)

Will the Leader of the House recognise that the greatest poll tax problems arise not from what the local authorities are doing or from the number of people choosing not to pay, but from the fact that millions of people cannot afford to pay? This is because of the basic unfairness of the poll tax and of other policies that the Government are pursuing. Will the Leader of the House therefore reconsider the need for a debate on this matter? Will he give the House an absolute assurance that, if there is to be any local government poll tax capping, there will be a full debate beforehand on the serious implications of such action?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

When any question of capping comes to be considered, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will act properly in accordance with the law that applies. I take note of how the hon. Gentleman's intervention, like the interventions of many other hon. Members, underlines the extent to which the community charge focuses attention on the level of local government expenditure.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher)

Will my right hon. and learned Friend find an early date for a debate on the scenes that occurred in the Walton-on-Thames town hall and in other town halls last night? Walton-on-Thames is within the borough of Elmbridge, which is part of my constituency. Militants incited people to intimidate councillors. It was disgraceful behaviour. These people are now commonly assumed to have been incited ultimately by the 31 Labour Members who are encouraging people not to pay the poll tax. Will my right hon. and learned Friend find a suitable way to bring this matter forward for consideration—perhaps by the Committee of Privileges—so that we may have a decision on how Members who are inciting people to break the law should be treated?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

It is not for me to decide what matters should be put before the Committee of Privileges. As my hon. Friend knows, such matters have to go through the Chair. However, I take note of the important point that my hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. Tony Banks

Is the Leader of the House satisfied with the way in which the House conducted its affairs yesterday in respect of the Department of Trade and Industry report on the House of Fraser? Is it not very strange that a 750-page report that was the No. 1 item on all the national news bulletins and is on the front pages of all the national newspapers today should have been the subject of a 29-minute statement in the House? Does the Leader of the House agree that the order of priorities that was adopted yesterday makes us look ludicrous, ridiculous and out of touch? Will he please give us an assurance that there will be a debate on this matter?

Mr. Speaker, You, said yesterday that the statement was the first stage and that there could then be a debate. Will the Leader of the House make sure that when that debate takes place the Attorney-General will come and listen to it? For some reason, the Attorney-General was not present for the statement yesterday, although he turned up to hear the statement by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). When it comes to what is really important in this country, what sort of priorities do the Government have?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The hon. Gentleman will understand that this matter came before the House yesterday because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry chose to volunteer a statement on it. Conclusion of that item of business yesterday was a matter to be determined, quite properly, by the Chair in the light of the pressure to consider other matters. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was not here at that time, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was here throughout the statement. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be able to answer questions on the matter in the House on Monday.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South)

May we have an early debate on the Post Office monopoly? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, during the past week, no collections or deliveries have been made in my constituency? That is causing grave inconvenience to many people. I have yet to receive the Whip for this week but I am here. The monopoly should be broken quickly. May we have an early debate?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am impressed by the way in which my hon. Friend moves from one item to another. Having asked questions week after week about war crimes legislation, he now moves on to the Post Office monopoly. I dare say we shall have to look forward to questions on that topic for a number of weeks because there are at present no plans to end the monopoly. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to attend the House, notwithstanding the non-delivery of his Whip.

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East)

Prestwick airport and the allocation of North sea haddock quotas are of vital importance to specific sectors of the Scottish economy, yet important statements on both subjects have been made this week through the medium of written questions, thus minimising scrutiny. Does the Leader of the House accept that that is a disgraceful way to treat Scottish matters? Will he consider again the use of written answers to deal with important Scottish matters, and will he arrange for suitable debating time on such matters?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

As the hon. Gentleman will understand. I and others concerned with the business of the House always try to identify the right way for announcements to be made. I shall take account of the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. I hope that he will share the general satisfaction and the policy consequences of the announcement about Scottish airports.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)

Bearing in mind that the European Community must be the most important force for stability in a changing Europe, and given the extraordinary way that it is set up so that it is difficult to hold it accountable to the House, will my right hon. and learned Friend bring forward next week his response to the very large number of requests that he has received for improvements in the procedures by which Members of the House can keep in touch with Members of the European Parliament and with the business of the European Community?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am always grateful to hon. Friends who emphasise the importance of improving co-operation between Members of the House and Members of the European Parliament and Community institutions. As my hon. Friend knows, some of those questions are being covered in my consideration of the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, whose recommendations will no doubt be considered by the House in due course.

Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore)

Despite his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman), will the Leader of the House reconsider having a debate on early-day motion 653?

[That this House thinks that Wales should not be burdened with a Secretary of State who, as a result of his announcement of his intention to resign at some unspecified future date, is limited in his ability to make decisions which bind his successor; points out that this would be an intolerable situation in any Department, but is especially so in a Department with such wide-ranging responsibilities; and calls upon the Prime Minister to end this Whitehall farce by immediately appointing his successor.]

Is he aware of the concern expressed on these Benches about the contempt with which the Secretary of State for Wales treated the House last Thursday, St. David's day, by not announcing to elected Members for Wales his intended resignation? There is great demand in Wales for a successor to be appointed. We do not wish to have a lame duck hanging on; we want a Secretary of State for Wales.

If the Government are in trouble about whom to select, may I suggest that, with his knowledge of foreign affairs and with his clout as deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might consider offering his services so that we can have a Secretary of State at an early date?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

It is odd to hear a Welsh Labour Member suggesting that one qualification as Secretary of State for Wales should be a knowledge of foreign affairs. As I have already said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales dealt with the matter as effectively and as sensibly as he could on Sunday. He had no case for doing so on the preceding Thursday. He will continue to serve in his office with the distinction that he has shown in his time there so far.

Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton)

Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the Home Secretary to make an early statement on the mass rioting which has been taking place around town halls all over the country, with people bussed in often from miles away? Clearly the rioting has been fomented by a statement issued on House of Commons notepaper and signed by 28 Labour Members.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the part played in that discussion, and the way that it was conducted, by the declared opposition of Labour Members to payment of a tax lawfully in place.

Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting)

The Leader of the House will no doubt be aware that the talks on Cyprus under the auspices of the Secretary-General have again broken down. As Cyprus is a Commonwealth country and this country is one of the guarantor powers, when are we to have a debate in Government time on that island and its future?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I cannot offer the prospect of a debate on that matter in the near future. I assure the hon. Member, and those who naturally follow this important matter, that the House will continue to maintain a close interest in it, as do my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's concern to their attention.

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay)

Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time in next week's business to arrange for the Attorney-General to make a statement to the House on the report of the Department of Trade and Industry published yesterday? As there was less than half an hour to discuss that important issue yesterday, many questions are left unanswered, in particular, how 1,000 illicit copies of a stolen volume of the report were printed by someone called Mr. Sam Evans. He happens to be Adnan Khashoggi's American attorney. That is one issue that should he pursued. It is a matter of grave importance because it circumvented the report's publication yesterday. Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for the Attorney-General to make a statement next week?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am not sure that the existence of copies of a document, which has now been published with the authority of Her Majesty's Government, can be said to circumvent the publication which has now taken place.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar)

I cannot hear.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am not sure whether publication, in the way described by my hon. Friend, of copies of a document that has already been published with the authority of the Government, can be said to circumvent publication that has now taken place. If my hon. Friend wants to ask questions about that matter, he will have a chance to do so when my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General answers questions on Monday.

Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North)

Will the Leader of the House note that I am adding my voice to that of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry? As one of its members, I think that any debate on the House of Fraser should not be held up because the Committee is looking at the question of company investigation. Will the Leader of the House take on board the disquiet shown on both sides of the House at the shortness of yesterday's statement and the fact that there are many questions still to be answered? As well as wanting the Leader of the House to speak to the Attorney-General to see if he will take part in the debate, many hon. Members will listen with interest to what the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has to say about his role in that sorry affair.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

As I have already said, there will be no scope for a debate on that matter next week. The following week we shall be entering the period of the Budget debate, when some aspects of the matter may be raised. I cannot do more today than say that I shall take note of the number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have raised the issue.

Mr. Andrew MacKay (Berkshire, East)

On reflection, does my right hon. and learned Friend feel that he was less than characteristically generous in his response to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)? Surely we should have a statement, preferably a debate, on the number of Labour Members who are allegedly telling people not to pay their community charge—there is some doubt as to whether the number is 28, 29, 31 or 32. That would also give Opposition spokesmen the opportunity to denounce those hon. Members who encourage people to break the law.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to my apparent lack of generosity. I always try to deal generously with the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), who has certainly done us a service in emphasising yet again the need for the Labour party to repudiate opposition to payment of a tax which is lawfully in place.

Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro)

Is the Leader of the House aware that, before the militant tendency of the Conservative party demonstrated in Richmond, the Liberal-Democrat councillors there undertook the most comprehensive consultation anywhere in the country about the budget of that council? Were the Leader of the House to provide time for a debate, that might provide a useful lead in encouraging such consultation in other councils on the setting of their budgets.

While considering such openness and consultation, did the Leader of the House note that the Conservative broadcast on television last night that boasted of the Government's environmental record was immediately followed by a news broadcast citing the criticisms of our European neighbours of the Government's environmental record? That at least seems to be a subject for debate. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the complaint of many people appears to be that the Richmond councillors to whom he referred took insufficient account of the consultations on which they embarked. As for the North sea conference, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will no doubt report further to the House and will answer questions in due course.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange an early debate on the relationship between inflation and local government taxation, so that I can put my constituents' case before the House and point out that, although inflation since 1986 has totalled about 20 per cent., during those four years Ealing Labour council has raised its rates and local taxation by nearly 300 per cent.? In addition, that same Labour council has borrowed £200 million, and will have to start repaying that next year. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is on the Front Bench, will have to share that repayment.

Is it not time for a proper debate on the appalling, wicked and unfair expenditure of a Labour council that has raised local taxation by 300 per cent. in four years, and has still not had clearance from the auditing officer for any of its accounts for the past four years?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to his constituents' concern about the high-spending, high-tax policies of the Labour-controlled Ealing council. I believe that I am right in saying that it is the council area where we find the residence of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps it is his presence there that is encouraging such fiscal extravagance.

Ms. Mowlam

In view of the number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who this afternoon have stated their concern about not having a debate on the House of Fraser report, will the Leader of the House give a clear commitment that such a debate can be held the week after next? As he said earlier, it is a critical report. Indeed, the Prime Minister said at Question Time that the buck stopped with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. All that hon. Members on both sides of the House want is the chance—which is our democratic right —to get him to answer the questions raised in that report.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I have already undertaken to consider that question in the light of the number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have raised the matter. I cannot do more than that today.

Mr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet)

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is real and widespread concern in the country—including among many members of the National Union of Mineworkers—about the recent allegations that the leadership of their union sought arms and money from a terrorist regime to undermine the United Kingdom? If my right hon. and learned Friend cannot find time next week for a debate on that important subject, and as an internal union inquiry would do nothing to allay public concern, and given the sudden, belated enthusiasm of the Leader of the Opposition for distancing himself from Mr. Scargill, will my right hon. and learned Friend inquire through the usual channels whether an Opposition Supply day might be made available to debate this important subject?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I shall certainly make such an inquiry, because I am sure that the Labour party wishes to do everything possible to condemn the matters raised in this way.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)

Will the Government find time to respond to Chancellor Kohl, who put conditions on the recognition of the existing German-Poland border and alluded to Germans living in Poland? Was that not a most unhelpful and unpleasant statement, which brought back memories of Hitler's claims? Was it not ominous for the future, and does it not put German unification at risk?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The Leader of the House may be multi-faceted when answering business questions, but that does not include the making of instant comments on rather far-fetched observations such as those that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley)

We have heard a number of calls for a debate on the House of Fraser affair and on the shenanigans in the miners' strike of the leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers. May I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that it would be wholly appropriate to have a single debate covering both topics? We need to clear the air on the NUM fiasco, because the leader of the NUM is now giving Yorkshire and Yorkshiremen a bad name.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am always open to imaginative suggestions for reforming the procedures of the House, but I am not immediately persuaded by the charms of a debate on both those topics at the same time. However, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the serious implication of the allegations now made about the affairs of the NUM.

Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)

Will the Leader of the house accept that we understand that he could not commit himself off the cuff to a debate on the allegation voiced by his hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) about 1,000 copies of a report being produced by an American? Will he equally recognise that it is an important allegation? May we ask him, therefore, whether he will make inquiries between now and Monday to establish the accuracy of the allegation and, more importantly, whether that publication took place before the Government's publication of the report? If it transpires that publication took place before the Government published the report, will the Leader of the House ensure on Monday that we have a statement to explain how that arose?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

If and in so far as the way in which the point is put by the right hon. Gentleman means that I failed to detect or to acknowledge a substantial point in the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), I shall see that it is brought to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General so that he may be able to answer questions about it, as far as he can, on Monday.

Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham)

Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed the reports in the newspapers in the past few days about the growing practice of breeding bandogs—mixtures of pit bull terriers, ridgebacks and Rottweilers, for example—with the express purpose of breeding an especially savage and vicious large dog, and about the apparent liking of the criminal classes for such dogs? Will my right hon. and learned Friend invite the Secretary of State for the Environment to consider the matter and to tell us what he proposes to do about it?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

My hon. Friend knows that legislation about dangerous dogs was placed on the statute book as recently as last summer. However, recent incidents such as those underlying the reports to which he referred are being examined closely by my right hon. Friends. I shall draw my hon. Friend's question to their attention.