Business of the House (Hansard, 21 November 1991)

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

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor)
The business for next week will be as follows: MONDAY 25 NovEMBER—Second Reading of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.
Motion on the Library Charges (England and Wales) Regulations.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 26 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 27 NovEMBER—Opposition day (1st Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will he a debate described as "The Housing Problem" followed by a debate entitled "Sports Provision in the United Kingdom". Both debates arise on Opposition motions.
Motion to take note of EC documents relating to the 1992 EC budget. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 28 NovEMBER—Proceedings on the Welsh Development Agency Bill.
FRIDAY 29 NovEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 2 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Transport and Works Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 27 November to consider European Community document No. 7485/91 relating to child care.
European Standing Committee B will also meet at 4.30 pm on Monday 2 December to consider European Community documents relating to indirect taxation. Details will be given in the Official Report.

§ Dr. Cunningham
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement early next week by the Home Secretary? Is he aware of the serious allegations made in the television programme "Thames Reports" last week about the alleged involvement of the police in the break-out of terrorists from Brixton prison last July? Are not those very serious allegations? Is it not also serious that it is implied that the Home Office knew about that involvement at the time? Is not the House of Commons, indeed the country as a whole, entitled to hear from the Home Secretary in person exactly whether those allegations have any foundation? Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early oral statement on that important matter?
What has happened to the statements that we expected on revenue support grant? Given that the decision of the Department of the Environment and of the Scottish and Welsh Offices will have huge implications for the levels of poll tax that people will be expected to pay next year, should we not have an early statement in the Chamber on those issues?
Turning now to his own responsibilities, when does the Leader of the House expect to be able to make a statement on expanding the provisions of communication between Members of this House and the institutions of the 423 European Community? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us about that soon and that he will make a statement on that matter next week.
Can the Leader of the House find time soon for a debate on the economy of London? Is he aware of the report by the Henley Centre for Forecasting, which states that, in the first nine months of this year, 12,359 small businesses failed in London and the south-east, which is more than in the whole of last year and shows an alarming and continuing increase in business failures in our capital city? The economy of London is suffering dreadfully in this second Conservative recession, and we should have an opportunity to debate that matter in the House as soon as possible.

§ Mr. MacGregor
No statement is necessary on the Brixton escape and there will not be a statement next week. I understand that, in view of the allegations about the conduct of Staffordshire special branch officers, the chief constable of Staffordshire has arranged for a full investigation by the deputy chief constable of another force. It would not be appropriate for the Home Secretary to comment until the inquiry is completed.
On the hon. Gentleman's request for a revenue support grant statement from my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales, the hon. Gentleman is correct in intimating that statements on those matters are necessary, and I hope that they will be made very soon—I hope next week. I cannot give a precise date, but that is the intention.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point about travel —which is what I think that he had in mind when he referred to "communication"—by hon. Members to European Community institutions, I hope to table the necessary resolutions very soon. They are being technically completed at the moment.
In view of our heavy business, especially that relating to legislation, I see no prospect for a debate in Government time on the economy of London.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. No fewer than 82 right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are seeking to take part—

§ Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South)
And Ladies.

§ Mr. Speaker
Yes, and Ladies—are seeking to speak in the European debate. Would the hon. Gentlemen—and Ladies—who wish to participate please reserve their fire at business questions so that we can get on? I may then be able to call them.

§ Sir Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington)
Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Opposition to initiate a Supply day debate in the not-too-distant future on the subject of the recession, because there is a strange idea, fostered by the Opposition and the media, that it is a peculiarly British disease, whereas it is worldwide? A debate would present a good opportunity to underline the fact that many countries are experiencing far more difficulties than we are.

§ Mr. MacGregor
My hon. Friend has made the point. Those of us who travel abroad know that he is right. The economic issues that he has menioned exist in many other countries and have implications for our position. I am sure 424 that he will agree that the improvements in manufacturing exports clearly show how well British industry is doing, given the world situation.

§ Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on yesterday's meeting of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference, especially in the light of the Prime Minister's failure to respond to the second part of the question that was asked by the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs)?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I am not sure whether a statement on yesterday's meeting would be appropriate, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's request to my right hon. Friend's attention.

§ Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton)
Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of the whole House for agreeing to extend last night's debate until midnight, thus allowing a large number of Members to be called?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to make a statement next week about political asylum fraud? Will he ensure specifically that the Home Secretary gives an assurance that no pressure or persuasion is being applied to the Metropolitan police in the case of Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi of Hayes to halt their inquiries or withdraw requests to investigate the bank accounts of Members of Parliament who have business or other links with Mr. Bedi?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I cannot comment on that case. The issue of political asylum is, of course, being debated in relation to a Bill which is currently going through the House.

§ Sir John Farr (Harborough)
Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at the Order Paper recently? Has he noticed that several right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have tabled a motion about the establishment of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland affairs? Has my right hon. Friend been able to consider that point yet?

§ Mr. MacGregor
As the House knows, because I have said it several times in business questions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said that the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee is best taken forward in the context of the fresh political talks. I believe that that is right. We must all hope that in due course the talks will proceed.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food again to make a statement about the dioxins in Bolsover? Is he aware that, when the dioxin-contaminated milk was transferred in the summer from Bolsover to Severn-Trent for disposal, Severn-Trent did not have a licence? Then an attempt was made to get rid of it at 800 deg C in the west midlands but the incinerator needed to be at 1,200 deg C. The result was that the dioxins from Bolsover in the east midlands were transmitted all over the west midlands. It is high time that there was a public inquiry into the matter and that the Minister of Agriculture made a statement at the Dispatch Box.

§ Mr. MacGregor
I have responded as fully as possible when the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, and I have drawn it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As I have said before, the results of the testing will be published when all the data have been evaluated in the new year.

§ Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)
What is the progress on introducing the Bill to increase the penalties for youngsters who steal cars? Is my right hon. Friend aware that last night in my constituency a woman was killed in a car accident and three others were injured, one extremely seriously? The driver of the other car, which was stolen, was a 16-year-old boy. Will my right hon. Friend join me in sending condolences to the bereaved family and wishing those who are injured a speedy recovery? Does he agree that the sooner we put new measures on the statute book, the sooner we can instil into these young criminals the knowledge that such selfish and irresponsible behaviour will not be tolerated?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I certainly join my hon. Friend in sending condolences to the bereaved family and wishing a speedy recovery to the injured. I am sure that the whole House deplores such incidents. There can be no doubt about the message to young people who engage in this activity. I assure my hon. Friend that we are proceeding with urgency on the Bill. Technical considerations are being completed, and I hope that we shall be able to put it to the House before long. In view of what my hon. Friend has said—with which I am sure that everyone in the House agrees—I hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage through the House.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
May we have a statement on Sunday trading? Is it true, that B&Q sponsored the agents' ball at the Conservative party conference? What is the connection?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I am not certain whether that is true, but I am sure that there is no connection. We have no plans to make any changes to the legislation on Sunday trading in the near future—for example, before Christmas. As the House knows, the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), has had detailed discussions on the reform of Sunday trading. Everyone recognises that the law is anomalous. The difficulty is to find a solution that will command majority support in the House. My right hon. Friend is continuing to explore that in her discussions.

§ Mr. Paul Channon (Southend, West)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, before we get to Maastricht, it is important that we should have the views of all hon. Members? Therefore, will he arrange another debate before the summit so that we can hear the views of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and establish whether all ex-leaders of the Labour party support its present policy?

§ Mr. MacGregor
If we tried to extend that to all Labour Members rather than to ex-leaders, we would have to debate the issue all week to tempt them to their feet. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. He is right to draw attention to the divisions on the Labour side of the House, which were made clear by the way in which the House responded to a point that the Leader of the 426 Opposition made yesterday about the so-called unity of the Labour party. However, we have endeavoured to have as long a debate as we can on the issue yesterday and today.

§ Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)
Would the Leader of the House ensure that we discuss the relationship between a Secretary of State and a Select Committee of the House at the earliest opportunity? I refer to the "Waldegate Affair", of which I am sure he is aware.

§ Mr. MacGregor
That is a completely wrong description of a matter which the Select Committee on Privileges is now discussing—which is why it would not be appropriate for me to say anything further.

§ Dr. John Blackburn (Dudley, West)
Will my right hon. Friend consider early-day motion 209, which relates to a British company that has achieved a wonderful contract in Kenya?
[That this House calls upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister of State for Overseas Development to grant Aid Trade Provision Cover and ECGD cover over three years from 1992 to enable Communication Supplies Ltd. to continue to export further System X telephone exchanges and ancillary equipment to Kenya, which they have done successfully for the past seven years; and furthermore notes that the Kenyan Government considers this project as top of their list of priorities for trade with the United Kingdom, and the project will save and provide many thousands of jobs throughout the United Kingdom and will lead to repeat business for many years to come, and that if funding is not forthcoming the contract will be lost to the United Kingdom and awarded to either Japanese, French or Italian companies, all of whom have shown open interest.] Will he consider an early debate on that important issue, or convey the motion's sentiments to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I shall certainly convey the sentiments, but I am afraid that I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate.

§ Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)
Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that the discussions in which Ministers arc involved in the European Commission regarding the MacSharry proposals are of fundamental importance to the future of British agriculture? Will he undertake to debate, in Government time, the negotiations before their conclusion is reached or, alternatively, afterwards?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I certainly agree about the importance of the MacSharry proposals. The hon. Gentleman asks whether we could debate them after they have been debated in the European Community, but we are talking about a long time ahead. I understand that the Scrutiny Committee is due to examine the detailed text on 27 November, and we certainly plan to have a debate in early December. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on this matter.

§ Mr. Steve Norris (Epping Forest)
Will my right hon. Friend note that, with 82 hon. Members wishing to express an opinion in the debate later this afternoon, any suggestion that the additional two hours provided is adequate is clearly wide of the mark? Will he give the House an assurance that, when we discuss the post-Maastricht position, the debate will be unlimited? On 427 his discussions with Front-Bench Members, in the absence of a commitment to a referendum, will he ensure that, at least on this side of the House, there is a free vote?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I have done my best to give as much time as possible to the debate yesterday and today, including making my answers to business questions as short as possible so that we can get on with the debate. However, I would certainly not want to give a commitment about a further debate.

§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)
Is the Leader of the House aware that the representatives of every medical and professional body in Aberdeen and Grampian region oppose the opt-out application for Foresterhill hospitals? Although he may not care to remember as far back as a fortnight ago, does he recollect that every candidate in the Kincardine and Deeside by-election, including his own, expressed opposition to the opt-out proposals? Will he ensure that next week the Secretary of State for Scotland comes to the House and rejects the proposals out of hand?

§ Mr. MacGregor
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is considering the proposals and will make a statement on the matter as soon as he is ready.

§ Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)
Is the Leader of the House aware that more than 70 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have signed a prayer against the explosives regulations? Will he find time to debate the matter?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I have noted what my hon. Friend has said. I shall have to consider it.

§ Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)
Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 148 about the disgraceful closure of Coventry colliery with the loss of 1.300 jobs?
That this House condemns British Coal for its closure of the Coventry Colliery at Keresely with the loss of 1,300 jobs, completed in a mere 13 days from the announcement of the decision to the working of the last shift: believes that the pit is not abandoned but mothballed with 40 million tonnes of good quality reserves of medium sulphur content which will be kept on a care and maintenance basis until a link-up is organised by a privatised Daw Mill Colliery should the Government be re-elected; condemns British Coal's refusal to attend two meetings of local authority and parish councillors, local honourable Members of this House and church representatives and notes the absence at the meetings of 24th October and 11th November of the local Tory honourable Members; and calls for a public inquiry into the methods of the closure and the false economics which talk of 'losses' yet fail to take into account the future cost to public funds of lost production and taxes paid, and of dole and unemployment payments to be made.] Following a meeting this morning at the Department of Energy, may I ask him to arrange for the Secretary of State to make a statement answering the anger in Coventry, not just about the way in which the pit was closed and the loss of jobs, but the belief that the closure took place to mothball 40 million tonnes of medium sulphur content coal so that, were the Conservatives to be re-elected and 428 the pits privatised, Daw Mill could take that coal out in a UDM pit? How much further do the Government intend to take their vendetta against members of the NUM?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I have seen the early-day motion to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He will know that decisions on individual colliery closures are matters for the British Coal Corporation. I understand that the closure of the colliery in question has been due to heavy losses resulting from continued failure to meet operating targets.

§ Sir Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people inside and outside the House, while recognising that it is important to spend two days debating the future of Europe, wonder why the House is not debating, even for a short time, the fact that a war is raging in a European country—Yugoslavia? Will he consider having a debate on the situation there?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I have noted my hon. Friend's remarks. My problem is that a great deal of business needs to be done, and I have to try to accommodate that business as well.

§ Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde)
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement about the way in which contractors are paid £10 an hour for security guards at some of our vital establishments when security guards in my constituency are being paid £1.80 an hour? Do I see the Leader of the House smiling at that? Is he aware that the nation's security establishments are being guarded by people who are paid £.1.80 an hour? It is a lamentable state of affairs. The Secretary of State should make a statement about private security firms guarding the nation's military establishments.

§ Mr. MacGregor
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the smile was not about the issue he was raising. I do not think it would be appropriate for a statement, but I shall draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. David Porter (Waveney)
Will my right hon. Friend undertake to arrange a debate before Christmas, or at least before the December Council of Ministers meeting on fishing, so that we may have our annual chance to discuss the state of the fishing industry in England and elsewhere in the kingdom?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, and particularly his constituency concern about that issue. I promise him that I am endeavouring to find time for a debate.

§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)
May we have a statement about whether the Government intend to implement a European directive—it should have come into effect this weekend—by which local authorities will be informed when nuclear waste is being transported through their areas? This is a vital issue. Is he aware that from Brunswick in Germany tomorrow a nuclear waste consignment will be arriving at Dover? It will be stored over the weekend at Winfrith and on Tuesday will arrive at Dounreay for reprocessing. Not one authority has been advised about that. It is wrong that we should have to reply on voluntary information in such an extremely important matter.

§ Mr. MacGregor
I shall look into the point with my right hon. Friends and endeavour to get a response to the hon. Lady.

§ Mr. David Shaw (Dover)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that Dover port has special facilities for the safe transport of nuclear waste and is leading the country in making sure that the nuclear industry safety standards are fully adopted? Is he further aware that the port and officials at Dover make a major contribution to safety in this area? Will he, if he thinks it necessary, arrange for a debate on the matter?

§ Mr. MacGregor
My hon. Friend has made the point clearly and I am grateful to him for doing so, in view of which I do not think a debate is necessary.

§ Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)
I urge the Leader of the House to reconsider the answer he gave to the shadow Leader of the House about the possibility of a statement being made by the Home Secretary next week on the Brixton prison break-out. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two allegations were made in the programme in question? One was about the alleged involvement of the special branch. The other—equally damaging and important—was the allegation that the Home Office knew about the police involvement. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that, as we would expect of the British police, when a serious allegation is made, the chief constable of one force arranges for a senior officer of another to investigate the allegations, and everything about that investigation is laid bare for the public to see.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman should ask a question.

§ Mr. Ewing
Just as the Home Secretary used the prison officers as a scapegoat for the break-out—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is a matter for debate; it is not a question.

§ Mr. MacGregor
I have nothing to add to the point that I made about the statement. The hon. Gentleman's allegation about my right hon. Friend is absurd and wrong.

§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)
As returning stolen goods is different from aid, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, when the Foreign Secretary makes a statement on the return of the gold stolen by the Labour Government with the assistance of the then leaders of the Liberal party and is replaced in the Bank of England to the order of the Governments of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, that statement is not confused with an agreement on giving aid, which is a wholly different matter?

§ Mr. MacGregor
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is sitting beside me and has heard my hon. Friend's question.

§ Mr. John P. Smith (Vale of Glamorgan)
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 220.
[That this House is dismayed at the failure of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to provide adequate services at Cardiff-Wales Airport; considers it to be an absolute dereliction of duty to fail to provide continuous customs monitoring of international flights into the airport; notes 430 that travellers are advised to ring the Customs Office at Barry Maritime Docks in the event of their having anything to declare; and, given the potential danger of terrorist activity, drug smuggling and other illegal activities, demands the immediate restoration of a Jill customs service forthwith.] May we have an early debate on the restructuring that is taking place in Her Majesty's Customs and Excise which has left Wales's international airport without customs and passport control? With regular flights arriving from Amsterdam, Miami and Cyprus, it raises serious questions about increases in terrorist activity, drug smuggling and other illegal activities. That will worry hon. Members on both sides of the House, and we should discuss it at the earliest opportunity.

§ Mr. MacGregor
I assure the hon. Gentleman that Customs continues to monitor international flights into the airport. Customs staff will continue to attend and challenge passengers on the basis of the assessed risks of illegal importations of, for example, drugs, obscene material and the instruments of terrorism to which he referred.

§ Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)
Although we are a parliamentary democracy and would expect to take nearly every final decision in this place, is there not a body of respectable constitutional opinion that says that, if we propose to transfer the democratic accountability from a Westminster Parliament to an unelected European Commission, or even an elected European Parliament, the British people are entitled to take a view on the matter? Furthermore, is my right hon. Friend aware that we are unable to vote on that matter—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is a question of debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not make a speech that he might make if I were to call him.

§ Mr. Lawrence
I do not think that I shall be called, Mr. Speaker. Moreover, even if I were called, there is no opportunity to vote on the issue. May we have a debate next week or as soon as possible to consider whether we should have a referendum at any stage and in what circumstances?

§ Mr. MacGregor
Those are obviously matters that can be discussed in today's debate, so I see no need for a further debate. I entirely share the views which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expressed this afternoon.

§ Dr. Kim Howells (Pontypridd)
Will the Leader of the House consider allocating time to look at planning requirements as they affect former nationalised industries such as the regional electricity boards, which continue to behave as though they were not in business for profit? They position their pylons anywhere they choose and act as though they were still the strategic industry that they were once defined as.

§ Mr. MacGregor
The hon. Gentleman must use the time available to him in the normal way to debate that matter. I see no opportunity to debate it in Government time.

§ Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton)
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) asked about the economy of London. May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the further deterioration in the 431 state of local government in the London borough of Lambeth? A Labour woman councillor has suddenly resigned in mysterious circumstances in St. Martin's ward and the council is now seeking to block information to the public. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to investigate the matter and make a statement to the House about the deepening trough of local government in Labour-controlled parts of London?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
May we have a statement next week on the working of the Crossbows Act 1987, which was enacted after a number of serious incidents? The Act limits the possession of crossbows to those over the age of 17. In view of the serious incident that took place last night in Bradford, may we have a statement on the working of the Act to examine the possibility of a licensing system to curb even further the possession of such potentially highly dangerous weapons and to prevent a repetition of last night's attack?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I cannot promise a statement, but the hon. Gentleman knows that it will be possible for him to raise the matter at other times, such as on the Adjournment. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)
Will the Leader of the House end the continuing denial of ready access to important information brought about by the Government's failure to publish in an accessible form the answers to hon. Members' questions to executive agencies? Such information is available only in the splendid publication produced by my office with, this month, the help of the Rowntree Trust. It is nonsense that it should be published by private enterprise and an outside charity. When will the Leader of the House publish the answers to such questions in a supplement to Hansard?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I have seen a number of comments that have been made on the subject, including those by the Select Committees. The Government have been considering how to make available improved access to the information. I shall make an announcement very shortly.

§ Sir Richard Body (Holland with Boston)
Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)? What on earth will our constituents think of parliamentary democracy if so many of us are deprived of the opportunity of debating the subject?

§ Mr. MacGregor
In the run-up to the Maastricht negotiations, we have endeavoured to enable hon. Members to debate the matter in as wide and lengthy a manner as possible in the House. Obviously, there has to be some limit to the length of debates, but by extending last night's debate I endeavoured to allow as many Members as possible to contribute.

§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Was the hon. Member present for the business statement?

§ Mr. Faulds
Yes, all the way through. I did doze off once or twice.
Will the Leader of the House urge the Prime Minister to use his powers to remove from the board of trustees of national institutions those guilty of criminal offences? I refer of course to Gerald Ronson, who was appointed by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor.

§ Mr. MacGregor
I do not think that there will be a statement or debate on that matter next week.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. As the House knows, I dislike cutting short business questions. I shall allow them to continue until 4.10 pm, and I hope to call everyone. However, Members should make their questions brief.

§ Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham)
In view of the serious deterioration of the services provided by Network SouthEast on the Kent link and Kent coast lines which is causing serious dislocation and discomfort to my constituents and many other people, will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement next week on what plans he has to improve those services urgently?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. However, I do not think that there will be an opportunity for a statement on the subject next week.

§ Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West)
Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the police next week to enable the House to send congratulations to Harrow police who, through their calm and efficient work yesterday, brought a siege at Pinn medical centre, in my constituency, to a peaceful conclusion? A debate would enable hon. Members to congratulate and thank PC David Nicholls, who, although a married man with two children, offered to take the place of the hostage at great risk to himself.

§ Mr. MacGregor
I am sure that the House agrees with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. I am glad that he has had an opportunity to make the point.

§ Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South)
May we have a debate next week on local government to give me the opportunity to point out that, following its disastrous investment of £6.5 million in BCCI, Bury's Labour council now proposes to close three old people's homes? Is that not an absolute disgrace and a foretaste of things to come if Labour is ever given power in this country?

§ Mr. MacGregor
My hon. Friend is right about that being a foretaste of things to come if Labour ever comes to power. I am glad to say that I do not think that it will. My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully, and there is no need for a debate next week to take it further.

§ Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford)
Will my right hon. Friend consider finding time in the not-too-distant future for a debate on parliamentary language? There is a pressing need for a debate in view of the petulant outburst by the Leader of the Opposition.

§ Mr. MacGregor
I think that that is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that it is, and I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) to Peterborough's column in today's issue of The Daily Telegraph.

§ Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South)
Would my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the work of the national health service trust hospitals? Is he aware that, following the good news from Guy's hospital last week, it has been reported that since it became an NHS trust the Royal Free Trust hospital, which serves part of my constituency, has been able to increase the number of patients it treats and reduce its waiting lists? Any debate on NHS trusts will have to take place in Government time and not in Opposition time.

§ Mr. MacGregor
I am sure that we shall have an opportunity in future to debate the work of NHS trusts. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that these are important matters and that the trusts are already demonstrating the value of the change that we made. There will not be a debate next week, but I am sure that we shall have other opportunities to debate the subject.

§ Mr. William Cash (Stafford)
Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that to the people of this country the freedom of the press is every bit as important as democratic accountability? Does he know that at the moment there is a campaign throughout Europe and in all the other member states to preserve the freedom of the press? Is he aware that a British agency was recently summoned to the Commission and told that if it did not withdraw from that campaign its Commission account would be stopped forthwith? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a severe —

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We are on the subject of the business for next week.

§ Mr. Cash
Will my right hon. Friend consider making sure that the issue of the freedom of the press in relation to the European Community is debated as soon as possible?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to pursue that matter in other ways. I cannot see the prospect of a debate next week.

Relevant European Community documents
(a) 7184/91	Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1992
(b) 7368/91	Letter of Amendment No. 1 to 1992 Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities
(c) 8442/91	Letter of Amendment No. 2 to the Preliminary Draft Budget for 1992
(d) Unnumbered	Commission's Letter of Amendment No. 3 to the Preliminary Draft Budget for 1992
(e) 7731/91	Draft Budget of European Communities for 1992

Relevant European Community documents
(a) 6762/89	Indirect Taxes: Harmonisation
(b) 6641/90	Indirect Taxes: Harmonisation
(c) 6642/90	Indirect Taxes (Administrative Co-operation)
(d) 9670/90	Holding and Movement of Excisable Goods