Business of the House (Hansard, 28 January 1993)

§ Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East)
Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)
Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 1 FEBRUARY—Progress in Committee on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 10th day.
TUESDAY 2 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Railways Bill.
Motions on Customs and Excise orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motions on VAT orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Motions on the English revenue support grant reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (Contracted out Prisons) (No. 2) Order.
THURSDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Progress in Committee on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 11th day.
FRIDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Motions on the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order.
Motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 3 Februaryat 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows:
Standing Committee A—Document No. 5761/92 relating to the incineration of hazardous waste.
Standing Committee B—Document No. 9752/91 relating to the investment and management of pension funds.

§ Mr. Brown
In spite of Maastricht and the Government's understandable reluctance to discuss economic affairs on the Floor of the House, will the Leader of the House confirm that time will be found in the near future for the social security uprating orders, the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the coal industry, which is due tomorrow, and a day's debate on the detailed public expenditure plans of Government Departments?
Will he find time for the House to discuss early-day motion 941 which deals with the disconnection of domestic water services, or find time for the House to discuss hill livestock farming support?
[That this House is appalled that the number of disconnections of water supplies to inhabited domestic premises has trebled, from 7,273 to 21,586, since 1990–91; notes that the health and safety regulations in the Factories Act 1901 and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 ignore the fact that for millions of people the domestic space is also their area of work, that there is no provision for emergency access to water where disconnection has taken place and that this could lead to extreme danger to health in the event of an accident or fire in the home, that where disconnection has taken place this is likely to affect access to heating and will furthermore expose people to danger due to heating systems running dry, and that the installation of prepayment meters does not solve these problems and can exacerbate them in the case of the frail and elderly; and calls on the Government to extend the Health and Safety Regulations to cover all inhabited domestic premises and to instruct the water companies to recover outstanding payments through the courts and not by disconnection.]
May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the widespread anxieties of the shipbuilding and ship repair communities of Devonport, Rosyth and Tyneside, and remind him that we would normally have had the annual debate on the defence estimates by now? May I remind him that we are due a one-day debate on the Royal Navy in the near future?
If the Leader of the House is finding trouble in fitting all this in, perhaps he will consider withdrawing the Railways Bill from next week's business, particularly in 1153 light of recent comments, so that it can be given more mature consideration before it comes to the Floor of the House?

§ Mr. Newton
In answer to the last question, perhaps I could, but I do not intend to.
As regards the rest of the questions, I note the point made about the Royal Navy. We have recently had a debate embracing the Royal Air Force but also focusing on events in the middle east.
I cannot undertake to arrange the debate that I think the hon. Gentleman was seeking in respect of early-day motion 941, or add to what I said to his hon. Friend last week on the question of further debating public expenditure. As regards hill livestock compensatory allowances, I would expect to provide time for the debate which many people wish to see, although I acknowledge that it is not in next week's business.
As for the coal industry, I will not attempt to add to what has been said on earlier occasions. There is a clear commitment to a debate in the wake of the White Paper that my right hon. Friend expects to publish when he has had a chance to consider all the various reports that he has had from the House and from outside consultants, and to consider future policy.
Lastly, on the hon. Gentleman's first point, about social security uprating orders, I will indeed be looking for a reasonably early debate, and perhaps the precise timing is best left for discussion through the usual channels.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
I wonder whether it would be helpful to the House, and particularly the Government, if my right hon. Friend could tell us whether he intends to suspend the 10 o'clock rule on Monday and Thursday of next week, so that we may avoid a repetition of the sad events of last night, when convoys of ministerial cars converged on the Palace and there was no vote; when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was beached in the Smoking Room intending to vote, but there was no vote; and when my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) missed his Adjournment debate because there was no vote. Why was there no vote last night? Did the Government feel that they might have lost it?

§ Mr. Newton
I think that neither you, Madam Speaker, nor the House, certainly not the usual channels, would expect me to engage in the kind of speculation which my hon. Friend invites about the handling of Government business.

§ Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)
Having regard to the very serious unilateral action on steel imports that the Americans have recently taken, will the Leader of the House make time available for at least a statement, if not a debate, on the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations and the whole question of international trade?
Secondly, I am very pleased to hear that he is making arrangements for the debate on HLCAs, after the very successful farming lobby of this place earlier this week. Will he give us a guarantee that the debate will be on the Floor of the House and not in a Standing Committee?

§ Mr. Newton
Yes. I expect a debate on the Floor of the House.
1154 I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he sought about a debate on GATT and trade matters generally, although of course I will consider the point that he has raised. He may like to know, if he is not already aware of it, that both Sir Leon Brittan, on behalf of the whole European Community, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade have made clear in writing to the United States Secretary for Commerce our view that the American proposals for steel tariffs are unjustified and disproportionate.

§ Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)
Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to debate early-day motions 1228–1232, which appear under my name on the Order Paper?
[That this House takes note of the Premium Savings Bonds (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 3116), dated 9th December 1992.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have used this rather Byzantine procedural device to draw attention to a monstrous proposal by the Post Office to increase certain minimum payments, so that, to give one example, grandparents who wish to give premium bonds to their grandchildren must pay a minimum of £100 rather than £10? If my right hon. Friend cannot find time for a whole day's debate on this subject next week, will he bring his common sense to bear, knock a few heads together and try to stop this very unpopular move?

§ Mr. Newton
That is the kind of invitation to which any member of a collectively organised administration would be unwise to say yes, but I will certainly bring my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of the appropriate colleagues. I believe that he will find that those colleagues are Treasury Ministers, who are due here to answer questions on Thursday next.

§ Mr. David Jamieson (Plymouth, Devonport)
The Leader of the House may be aware that, today, a copy of "Job Opportunities" is circulating among employees of the Ministry of Defence which appears to contradict the statement made in the House on 12 January by both the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister that a decision had not been made about the nuclear refits contract. This document suggests either incompetence of the highest level by the MOD or that the House has been misled. Will the Leader of the House make time available at the earliest opportunity for a statement by the Secretary of State for Defence on this matter of great importance to my constituency, and to the whole nation?

§ Mr. Newton
I need hardly say that my right hon. and learned Friend will of course make a statement as soon as he is in a position to do so. But it is quite wrong—I give the hon. Gentleman this clear assurance—to interpret the document to which he has referred in the way he has. I understand that that has now been made clear by the Defence Research Agency. I will go beyond that and make it absolutely clear that no decision has yet been taken on the future of the royal dockyards.

§ Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that, to many people inside and outside the House, it is not only incomprehensible but scandalous that we can once again devote two days to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill while ignoring the grave crisis in the Balkans, which gets worse each 1155 week? May I once again urge my right hon. Friend to find time next week for a debate, on the Adjournment of the House if he likes, on that crisis?

§ Mr. Newton
As my hon. Friend knows, I am well aware of the concern that he has expressed in that regard, even though I have not been able to respond to it in my statement. I take note of his request, but I cannot make any definite commitment.

§ Mr. Stephen Byers (Wallsend)
I wonder whether the Leader of the House will give further consideration to the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) for a day's debate on the Royal Navy? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the great concern in the communities of Plymouth, Rosyth and Barrow and on Tyneside about future defence orders, but he also needs to be aware that more than 300 constituencies contain companies that place orders at Swan Hunter on Tyneside in my Wallsend constituency.
We need assurances that the Ministry of Defence intends to proceed with its order for a new helicopter carrier, which is why we need a debate to reassure the people of Tyneside and elsewhere in the country that the defence procurement programme will continue as planned.

§ Mr. Newton
I am, of course, well aware of the widespread interest—to put it no more strongly—in the matters currently under consideration by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, to which reference has already been made, but I cannot add to what I said in reply to an earlier question. However, in view of the fact that Vickers has a strong presence in Leeds and in the north-east in Newcastle—I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents may also benefit to some extent from the work that my right hon. and learned Friend has done in connection with the Challenger order.

§ Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be real interest in next week's debate on the revenue support grant settlement? A number of important issues will need to be raised in that debate, but Conservative Members are greatly concerned about local government, specifically the growing evidence of corruption and inefficiency and the attempts by Labour members of councils to undermine the work of their officers. In my constituency of Worcester, they sacked the chief executive in order to give more power to the elected members. Can we therefore find time for a debate specifically on other aspects of local government?

§ Mr. Newton
I do not think that it would require exceptional ingenuity for my hon. Friend—subject, of course, to your guidance, Madam Speaker—to raise those matters in a debate on the revenue support orders.

§ Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside)
Is there any chance that the Leader of the House could persuade the Secretary of State for Wales to make a statement next week on the future shape of local government in Wales? Does he know that we have been waiting for many months to hear the Secretary of State's views? Some of us are beginning to think that, when they are announced, they will merely be the pretext for parliamentary boundaries to be changed.

§ Mr. Newton
The hon. Gentleman need only contain his impatience until Monday, when the Secretary of State for Wales will be here to answer questions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to put that matter to him.

§ Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)
My right hon. Friend announced that the 10th and 11th days of debate on the ratification of the wholly irrelevant treaty on European union are to take place next week. May I remind him that, in contrast, he and the Government did not find a single day throughout the whole of last year to debate the three services—the Navy, Army and Air Force—or the statement on the defence estimates, and that last week's debate on the Royal Air Force was hijacked by foreign affairs? In view of the fact that our armed forces are operational in Bosnia, Croatia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, is it not high time that we had a debate on the armed forces at the earliest possible date?

§ Mr. Newton
I do not quite share my hon. Friend's apparent feeling that last week's debate on Kuwait and other issues in the Gulf was hijacked. It seemed an important aspect of the work that the Royal Air Force is doing, and a proper opportunity to debate it. I have already said, in response to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), that I shall consider the possibility of further debates, to which he and my hon. Friend referred, but I am not in a position to promise one next week.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
Will the Leader of the House give time at an early opportunity, preferably next week, for a debate on the operation of the Broadcasting Act 1990? The right hon. Gentleman will recall that that was allegedly a wonderful Government measure, but we have recently seen its consequences, with falling audiences for ITV and, because of the money paid for the franchises, cheap programmes now being put on the screen, of which one example is a squalid interview with mass murderer Dennis Nilsen. The Government could arrange a debate so that the responsibility for the deterioration could be placed firmly where it belongs in their own hands.

§ Mr. Newton
This subject came up when I was answering questions on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a quarter of an hour or so ago. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is urgently considering what can be done about some of those matters. The Home Secretary is examining the question of the broadcast which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I should add that I simply do not accept the connection which the hon. Gentleman makes between those events and the Government's framework in which broadcasting now takes place.

§ Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley)
Will there be an opportunity during next week's debate on the revenue support grant to investigate the way in which large swathes of local government operate—especially the way in which direct labour organisations are preserved at all costs, to appease union paymasters and buddies? Conservative Members would be interested to know whether it is just coincidence that the very Labour-controlled authorities that have whinged for so long about being underfunded, and said that the Government kept them short of money, 1157 turn out to be the authorities which have all along been lining the pockets of their sleazeball friends in the union-backed direct labour organisations.

§ Mr. Newton
The fundamental thrust of my hon. Friend's question is whether he may advert to all that when we discuss the revenue support grant orders—and the answer to that must be yes.

§ Ms. Rachel Squire (Dunfermline, West)
The Leader of the House has already said that no decision has been taken on the future of Rosyth and Devonport royal dockyards. However, he must be aware of the uncertainty and the fierce competition between the two dockyards. Will he ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make an announcement next week and to comment on early-day motions 1236, 1237 and 1238?
[That this House notes that in a letter from the Prime Minister to the honourable Member for Dunfermline East, dated 6th January 1993, on the handling of the nuclear refit competition, the Prime Minister made no mention of Rosyth's second bid but specifically compared RD57 with Devonport Management Ltd's greatly cheaper docks modernisation scheme, even though senior Ministry of Defence officials had assured Rosyth that Scheme IV would be accepted and fully evaluated in the competition after it was formally submitted on 10th December 1992; is concerned about leaks from recommendations issued by the Secretary of State for Defence's office to senior cabinet colleagues in early January that Rosyth's Scheme IV bid had been dismissed as insubstantial and insufficiently developed, and criticised because Rosyth were unable to file a firm, fixed price early enough; notes that Babcock Thorn state they were not told of such reservations or given the opportunity to submit additional information; is alarmed that similar leaks claim the Ministry of Defence has recommended Rosyth lose all nuclear refitting contracts in favour of Devonport and take instead a five-year package of guaranteed surface ship refitting that will secure only around 1,500 of the dockyard's 4,200 jobs and a deeply insecure future, whilst Devonport will be guaranteed 30 years of nuclear refitting work: and requests an early explanation from the Secretary of State for Defence]
Will the Leader of the House urge his right hon. and learned Friend to ensure a level playing field for Rosyth royal dockyard?

§ Mr. Newton
I know from conversations with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that he is very much aware of the uncertainty felt in both places, and of course he is concerned to remove it as soon as he properly can. Beyond that, I shall simply draw his attention to the hon. Lady's request.

§ Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton)
In advance of next Wednesday's debate on the revenue support grant, will my right hon. Friend be able to find time for our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement on the investigations that have taken place so far into the disgraceful affairs in Lambeth, Hackney, and Monklands, East?

§ Mr. Newton
I cannot promise an early statement, but my hon. Friend was probably present in the House yesterday when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was answering questions, and made some comment on those matters.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Could we have a statement, if not a debate, on the coal industry next week so that the President of the Board of Trade can be challenged on a statement that he has recently made three times on television that the coal industry is subsidised by as much as £1 billion a year? The coal industry has not received a subsidy from the Government since 1988.
The President of the Board of Trade is getting mixed up about the fact that power station contracts were made between the electricity companies and British Coal three years ago, and since then the world price of coal has fallen. The President of the Board of Trade says that that represents a subsidy. He is like someone who took out a mortgage in 1988 and then, with hindsight, wishes that he had not, because the price of the house has fallen. It is time that the right hon. Gentleman stopped telling those subsidy stories on television, because there is no truth in them.

§ Mr. Newton
The hon. Gentleman appears to be attempting to stage, in the form of questions to me, the debate that will no doubt in due course take place when my right hon. Friend has brought out the White Paper that he has promised.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that rather too much time is being devoted to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, when other vital issues such as trade and industry, which make a direct contribution to our economy and with which we are experiencing severe problems, need debating? There are also matters relating to broadcasting—the interview with the mass murderer is an instance of that—and, as my right hon. Friend knows, the transmission into this country of pornographic material by "Red Hot Dutch. That, too, demands Government action. There are also other matters relating to the rural economy, to hill livestock compensatory—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is covering the entire horizon. I should be grateful if he would put a question to the Leader of the House.

§ Mr. Winterton
I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would find time to debate these matters, which are of such critical importance to the country—now.

§ Mr. Newton
I have always been conscious that my hon. Friend has what might be described as wide-ranging interests. He has ranged so widely, as you have said, Madam Speaker, that I could hardly grant his requests in a month, let alone a week.
As it happens, I do not really agree with what he said, not so much about the importance of these other issues as about the Maastricht Bill. I happen to believe that the passage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill is extremely important to the successful future of trade and industry in this country.

§ Mr. Gerry Steinberg (City of Durham)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday in my constituency, in Frankland prison, a prison officer was attacked physically and sexually while escorting a convicted rapist in the line of duty? Will he ask the Home Secretary to hold an inquiry into the incident—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. Hon. Members should be putting questions to the Leader of the House about the business for next week, not asking him to act as a post office to pass on messages to other Ministers.

§ Mr. Steinberg
Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the staffing in prisons, and on the privatisation of prisons, which will make matters even worse?

§ Mr. Newton
The hon. Gentleman has now come well within the rules of order, Madam Speaker, because, as I said in my statement, there will be a debate on the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (Contracted Out Prisons) (No. 2) Order towards the end of Wednesday evening on 3 February. Beyond that, I understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised his point, and I will bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

§ Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South)
May I briefly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) for his unexpected support over the loss of my Adjournment debate last night?
Would it be possible to have a statement or a debate on the late-night opening of betting shops, an order governing which was laid before the House on 19 January? It is a matter of great concern throughout the country and particularly to betting shops staff and greyhound associations.
May we also have a statement at some stage on the future of pylon lines in north Yorkshire and Cleveland, a matter that has not been resolved—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. Members should ask only about one subject. I will not be able to call all hon. Members who have been rising at this rate, so I ask Members to be brief and to ask only about one subject.

§ Mr. Newton
In the interests of conforming with your guidance, Madam Speaker, may I say that I note my hon. Friend's request? I was sorry that he was frustrated in the matter of his Adjournment debate last night.

§ Mrs. Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
Will the Leader of the House acknowledge and, further, consider a debate on early-day motion 941?
[That this House is appalled that the number of disconnections of water supplies to inhabited domestic premises has trebled, from 7,273 to 21,586, since 1990–91; notes that the health and safety regulations in the Factories Act 1901 and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 ignore the fact that for millions of people the domestic space is also their area of work, that there is no provision for emergency access to water where disconnection has taken place and that this could lead to extreme danger to health in the event of an accident or fire in the home, that where disconnection has taken place this is likely to affect access to heating and will furthermore expose people to danger due to heating systems running dry, and that the installation of prepayment meters does not solve these problems and can exacerbate them in the case of the frail and elderly; and calls on the Government to extend the Health and Safety Regulations to cover all inhabited domestic premises and to instruct the water companies to recover outstanding payments through the courts and not by disconnection.]
Given the representations that we have heard today from the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and 1160 from public health authorities and the citizens advice bureaux about the unacceptability, in health terms, of disconnecting domestic premises from their water supplies, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that a debate is necessary to ensure that water companies recover debts owed to them through the courts and to make it illegal for them to disconnect supplies from domestic premises?

§ Mr. Newton
I shall draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend. The hon. Lady will know that, with the encouragement of the Director General of Water Services, water companies have been taking action to ensure that those who have genuine difficulties receive all possible help in meeting their debts.

§ Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury)
Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on the plight of the Maxwell pensioners, and especially on the continued and disgraceful failure of the office holders who are responsible for the administration of the common investment fund to agree, nearly a year after Maxwell's death, to apportion that fund among the different funds that are responsible for the pensioners?

§ Mr. Newton
My hon. Friend will know that, in some respects, the effort that has been presided over by Sir John Cuckney, who was appointed earlier this year by my right hon. Friend to oversee the recovery operation—if I may put it that way—which has been going well. I know that there are concerns about the allegations of delay on the point that my hon. Friend raises, and I shall bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

§ Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)
The Leader of the House will know that, since the privatisation of water in England and Wales, domestic disconnections have continued to increase. Since this barbaric practice, which quite deliberately puts people's health at risk for the sake of private profit, is illegal in Scotland, and as this place claims to be a unitary Parliament, will the Leader of the House arrange for Ministers from England and Wales to come to the House next week to make statements explaining to English and Welsh Members why their constituents have been discriminated against in this terrible way? At the same time, will he arrange for a Scottish Minister to reassure us that disconnections will continue to be illegal in Scotland?

§ Mr. Newton
No doubt the hon. Gentleman is well aware that my colleagues from Scotland will be here on, I think, Wednesday. He may care to raise with them at least part of what he has just raised. As for the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shll not attempt to add to what I said to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson).

§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)
Could we have a debate on arrangments for pedestrians in heavily trafficked areas, and especially on the refusal by many people, particularly pensioners and young mothers, to use subways in Northolt and other areas of London for reasons of danger and so on? May we have such a debate next week so that those issues can be highlighted, no more expensive subways are built and proper surface crossings are made as they are needed?

§ Mr. Newton
I am a little uncertain whether the main drive of my hon. Friend's question is towards the Home 1161 Office or the Department of Transport, but in so far as it verged towards the latter, I can tell him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be here on Monday 8 February to answer questions.

§ Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)
Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on last night's BBC2 "Timewatch" programme which confirmed the crucial role of the Irish Government in the the formation of the Provisional IRA and the collusion between both those parties in launching the present terrorist war? Such a debate would be important, because some of the terms of the contract that was then entered into between the Irish Government and the Provisional IRA are still in force.

§ Mr. Newton
I made some comment on that, in response to one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, when replying for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday, and I do not want to add to that. The right thing to do now is to concentrate on the efforts of both Governments to defeat current terrorism.

§ Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud)
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1259?
[That this House is concerned that British troops in the former Yugoslavia are facing not only hostile forces but also pay cuts and redundancy notices; and accordingly calls on the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that British troops are paid in full and relieved of worries about their employment prospects.] The motion has been signed by 23 Opposition Members. Some of us seem to remember that, at the last election, Labour's policy was to cut the defence budget by 30 per cent. Could we have an early debate on this matter so that they can tell us when the Opposition changed their minds?

§ Mr. Newton
I am tempted, but perhaps it would be proper for the response to come from the Opposition Front Bench. I am afraid that I cannot promise a debate next week.

§ Mr. David Clelland (Tyne Bridge)
As a Conservative Member confirmed earlier, things are gloomy for British manufacturing. Therefore, the news that Vickers Defence Systems in my constituency has won an order from Oman is welcome. Does the Leader of the House agree that the credit for that should go to the company and its skilled work force? Would he further lift the gloom by calling for an early statement by the Secretary of State for Defence to confirm that the order for the Challenger 2 upgrade is to go ahead?

§ Mr. Newton
I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments, which were explicit rather than implicit, at the beginning of his question. Motor car exports, chemicals exports and many other manufactured exports are doing extremely well. The prospects for manufacturing industry in the wake of the cuts in interest rates look rather better than they have done for some time.

§ Mr. Simon Coombs (Swindon)
Will my right hon. Friend cast his mind back to the last time that we had a debate on tourism? If, like me, he has difficulty remembering because it was so long ago, will he please find time at an early date for such a debate, especially in the 1162 light of the Government's announcement in the autumn statement that they are proposing to cut the grant to the English Tourist Board by £4 million over the next two years?

§ Mr. Newton
Perhaps the first thing that I should do in the wake of my hon. Friend's question is to check the date, which I do not have in my mind, on which the last debate took place. On the political thrust of his question, if I may put it that way, he will be aware that the Government are focusing the money that they spend on sport and tourism where it will be most effective, and especially in the overseas promotion of Britain.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
Will the Leader of the House accept my apologies for not having given him notice of my question?
Can we have a statement next week on the use, or unique abuse, of the unopposed return procedure that secures from the House an order to print so that the document is secure from legal action under the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Act prevents redress against actionable statements about police officers in the Nimmo Smith/Friel so-called report, prematurely praised by hon. Members before they had had an opportunity to read it?
Would he reflect on page 87 of "Erskine May"? Does he accept that there are people, police officers and others who are seething and incandescent with anger, as I am, about the procedure to which I tried to object on Monday, as is shown in column 817 of the Official Report? Will he reflect on what can be done?

§ Mr. Newton
I shall respond in the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman undoubtedly put his point. I have no doubt that he had perfectly good reasons for not giving me notice of his question, and I make no complaint about that. However, I think that he will understand that, without notice, the proper course is for me to reflect on the very carefully considered words that he used.