House of Commons Hansard Debates for 8 Mar 1990

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. Heffer (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. Heffer : 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.

Column 1013

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

Column 1014

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?

Column 1015

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

Column 1016

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

Column 1017

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

Column 1018

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 be pursued. It is a matter of grave importance

Column 1019

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

Column 1020

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.

Column 1021

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?

Column 1022

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.

Press Releases

4.38 pm

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you make it clear that for a Minister to issue a press release in which he makes serious allegations against a group of unnamed Members of Parliament without producing any evidence to substantiate those charges is a practice that you repudiate?

Mr. Speaker : I am afraid that I am not responsible for press releases.

BILL PRESENTED

War Crimes

Mr. Secretary Waddington, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Brooke and Mr. John Patten, presented a Bill to confer jurisdiction on United Kingdom courts in respect of certain grave violations of the laws and customs of war committed in German-held territory during the Second World War ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 95.]

WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,

That the Matter of Welsh Office Policies and Provision for 1992, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.-- [Mr. Fallon.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,

That the draft Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Fallon.]

Column 1023

Orders of the Day

Food Safety Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

[Relevant documents : The Sixth Report from the Social Services Committee, Session 1988-89, Food Poisoning : Listeria and Listeriosis (House of Commons Paper No. 257, 1988-89), the Government's reply to that Report (Cm 848) and the First Report from the Social Services Committee, Session 1989-90, Food Poisoning : Listeria and Listeriosis ; Follow-up (House of Commons Paper No. 93).]

4.40 pm

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill is a joint initiative between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Health and the Scottish Office. It seeks to cover the entire food chain. There is no doubt that the safety of British food depends on covering the whole of the food chain, for the chain is only as safe as its weakest link. We in Britain have safer food now than has been the case in the past. People are able to enjoy a wider variety of diet and they are living longer than ever. So in bringing forward a measure of this kind, we seek to build on the present law, to find ways of meeting the new problems that new techniques of food preservation and handling bring to us and to meet the requirements of the greater accuracy with which we can now discern the parts of food that may be contaminated by such things as listeria.

We now know much more about the composition of food and, because we are aware of the presence of substances about which we did not know previously, we cannot ignore them and we must find ways of meeting the much more stringent demands that the public rightly places on us. To do that, the first step must be to ensure better enforcement. Historically, enforcement in Britain has been through local authorities and I am convinced that there are major advantages in having a local enforcement service.

But there is still the problem that if there is only a local enforcement service, there can be a considerable difference between the way in which the law is enforced in various places. I recently attended a meeting of the Guild of Food Writers and heard a prominent restaurateur describe her experience. Before opening a restaurant, she was told to tile the kitchens in a certain way. After she had opened the restaurant, another representative of the same local authority told her to remove the tiles. Within a year, a further representative paid a visit and told her to replace them. That sort of dislocation advice given in certain circumstances--even in the same place, let alone as between places--brings the food safety law into disrepute. So although enforcement should be through local authorities, a change is needed to even out the standards over the country as a whole.

We propose to do that through codes of practice by which we hope to bring local authorities' actions and mechanisms into greater conformity without removing the need for local action on local problems, which vary from one outlet to another. That will mean better enforcement,

Next Section

Home Page