House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 Mar 1991

Column 1159

described as the Scots of India. How sad it is that that land is being stalked by the spectres of death, fear and extortion. On 5 January, The Economist reported :

"The death toll in Punjab was almost 4,500 in 1990, the highest for any year. Not all killings should be blamed on the militants or police. With the breakdown of the administration, crime syndicates have come up in a big way."

The Punjab needs its own representative legislative assembly which can give democratic expression to its people and appoint its own chief Minister and Government. In particular, it needs law and order. The present rule of gun law must be ended. The militants and the Government must call a halt to the carnage.

The Indian Government must accept that things cannot proceed as they are and that they cannot achieve anything on current trends. The brutality of the police and armed forces is achieving nothing. They are alienating the civil population by providing no protection to the law-abiding citizen and by condoning, and in some instances participating in, murder, rape and intimidation.

The Government of India must also show some concern for the police force. As The Economist reports :

"The police are demoralised. They unofficially pay bounties to armed freelances willing to take on the terrorists. Officially, any youngster willing to wield a gun can join a police team for 30 rupees"--

less than £1--

"a day. Unfortunately, many youngsters disappear with their guns, and some have joined the militants."

The republic of India is to hold another general election in May. I hope that the new Indian Government will learn the bitter lessons of the Punjab's recent history and restore to the state its representative legislative assembly which is a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and restore to its long-suffering people law and order and a respect for human rights. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will ensure that those hopes are endorsed and transmitted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the incoming Indian Prime Minister.

7.37 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : On 24 July 1986, I asked 17 specific questions about the forensic evidence of Dr. Skuse in relation to the Birmingham pub bombings. This is not the occasion to pursue that matter, although I sometimes wish that speeches in this place were examined more carefully. The proper thing for me to do is to submit evidence to Lord Runciman and Sir John May in their royal commission inquiry, and I shall do that.

The point, about which I have given notice, that I want to raise with the Leader of the House concerns the bombing on the Basra road. I became concerned about this when I read the news tape which stated :

"WARPLANES SWOOP ON FLEEING IRAQIS

American warplanes swooped on Iraqi forces streaming bumper to bumper' north from Kuwait City today picking them off with cluster bombs and other weapons, pilots on the US aircraft carrier Ranger reported.

It looks like the Iraqis are moving out and we're hitting them hard. It's not going to take too many more days until there's nothing left of them,' Captain Ernest Christensen told pool reporters aboard the carrier.

The pilots said the Iraqis were fleeing north towards the city of Basra in southern Iraq, presenting a bounty of targets for A-6 Intruders and other war planes.

Huge B-52 bombers were also dropping 1,000-lb bombs on the highways north of Kuwait City, they added.

Column 1160

We hit the jackpot,' one pilot said.

Captain Christensen described Iraqi movements as both a withdrawal and a retreat'."

I genuinely asked questions about that instead of jumping to conclusions. However, on 7 March the Prime Minister said : "Allied forces had instructions to attack retreating Iraqi units which could continue to pose a threat. We have no information on casualties sustained in these attacks." --[ Official Report, 7 March 1991 ; Vol. 187 c. 247 .]

That needs amplification before the House goes into recess. In the Gulf war, there were 131 allied dead, an estimated 2,000 people were killed in Kuwait and 150,000 Iraqis were killed. To find an equivalent imbalance, one must go back to the Conquistadores. A large percentage of those people were killed in the land war launched by Washington after Iraq had agreed, in Moscow, to an unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait.

Colin Hughes spoke of

"the glee with which American pilots returning their carriers spoke of the duck shoot' presented by columns of retreating Iraqis from Kuwait city."

That troubles many of us. The American pilots used Rockeye cluster bombs, which dispersed 247 bomblets containing needle-sharp shrapnel designed for soft targets--people. Their targets included many contract workers from the Indian subcontinent--that was discovered from the nature of their luggage-- who had no air cover. Did allied aeroplanes deliberately bomb people who were running away on the road to Basra? That question is also asked by the Kuwaitis.

I am indebted to Dr. Stephen Pullger for bringing to my attention a quote by Martyn Lewis, a BBC presenter, who said :

"The Kuwaitis fear that many of the hostages taken from Kuwait by retreating Iraqi troops may have died in Allied air attacks. Hundreds of the vehicles they used were trapped and bombed at the Mutla Gap as they poured out of Kuwait City, heading north on the main road to Basra."

A reporter, Michael MacMillan, was filmed on location as saying : "About an hour's road journey out of Kuwait City and heading north, the Al-Mutla Gap is where the Iraqi Army came to a standstill, paralysed by a relentless Allied air offensive.

What concerns the Kuwaitis is that buses like these had been used in the round up of people from Kuwait in the last three days of the Iraqi occupation."

I shall not read many of the other current reports in my possession.

I am not the only person asking such questions. Sir Michael Howard, former professor of the history of war at Oxford and now professor of modern history at Yale, said in The Times :

"Ever since the first world war, our primary concern has been to minimise our own casualties by using superior technology and industrial power to inflict crushing losses on our

opponents--including their non-combatant populations."

Apparently, Sir Michael Howard is among those concerned by the bombing. The consequences of the bombing--not merely probable but certain from the outset--were the opposite of proportional or utilitarian behaviour, even in the context of war.

One of the cruellest ironies of the conflict is that as many Kuwaitis may have died in this grotesque carnage of the allied bombing of that retreating army on the road to Basra as died at the hands of their Iraqi abductors. Would

Column 1161

anyone, on either Front Bench, care to justify the proportionality, logic, necessity or morality of that massacre?

Ruth Wishart wrote a moving article in The Scotsman, entitled "Ashamed of war's offensive aspects" in which she said :

"I am ashamed of how we have been led to behave in the past 48 hours, and I am ashamed that we no longer appear capable of independent thought. Surely the answer to atrocities and war crimes is to bring to justice the perpetrators, not indiscriminate, wholesale slaughter."

That is how it looks. Why were B52 bombers used by generals said to be devoted to pinpoint bombing? They laid mile upon mile of carpets of death. Pilots who dropped high explosives through clouds from 20, 000 ft were, on one air force reckoning, achieving "circular error probability" of one or two miles. That means that only half their bombs could fall in that radius.

I refer to a moving letter in The Times from Alison Buirski, who said :

"There is much talk about Saddam Hussein using civilian buildings, such as schools, for military purposes. I recollect with horror my own experience during the Second World War. At the end of 1943 in West London, I gave birth to my first child in Queen Charlotte's Maternity Hospital, Hammersmith, across the road from where we lived.

My baby was barely four-weeks-old when suddenly the area was subjected to a fiercely intensive series of air raids. I spent two nights crouched in my basement flat with my baby and then rushed away to my mother who lived in the country, taking with me a friend and her baby. We were lucky as my mother made room for us. We learnt that the target for this return of the Luftwaffe to our skies over Hammersmith was St. Paul's School just up the road, which was being used as headquarters for General Eisenhower's D Day preparations. I need hardly add that even to write about this memory is hard. It is something I would prefer to leave buried but reading about the air attacks on Baghdad, I know it is forever with me and I must protest against the bombing of all cities, by they London or Baghdad." The House of Commons, at least, deserves an answer. John Lehman, former secretary to the United States navy, said :

"Pentagon contacts had told him the laser-guided bombs were hitting their targets about 60 of the time. If you get a cloud coming between the airplane and the target or a burst of smoke, that breaks the laser-beam."

My colleagues and I are not ashamed to be called dogs of peace. The dogs of peace say that someone, some time, must answer those awkward questions.

7.46 pm

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) : Having often had the job of responding to debates such as this, I have come to the conclusion that it is an almost impossible job. This debate has covered such a wide range of subjects that it is impossible to respond to all of them. I shall therefore concentrate on the subject that has undoubtedly been the theme of the week- -the poll tax.

Before doing so, let me acknowledge the speeches on the middle east and the Gulf war that have been made by two or three of my hon. Friends including my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and on the hostages issue, which concerns so many of us and was mentioned by several Conservative Members. Clearly it is appropriate that those issues should be reflected in a debate that is a sort of end-of-term report. The two or three months since Christmas have been dramatic.

Column 1162

I make no apology for concentrating on the poll tax. When I summed up a similar debate at Christmas, I could report with pleasure and pride--with the confidence of knowing that I had the House behind me--that we had managed, in the period since the autumn break, to get rid of the Prime Minister. It is not often that an Opposition Front- Bench spokesman can say that, knowing that he has the support of the majority of the House. All my hon. Friends, plus a fair number of Tory Members, supported me on that issue. I am rather bewildered but pleased to say now that I can look forward with pleasure to the demise of the poll tax. Once again, I can speak, with the majority--perhaps with one or two late converts--of the House behind me. I hope that the Leader of the House will respond to the two or three points that I shall make on the poll tax.

The Government cannot dismiss the poll tax as if it were a peripheral policy they got wrong and for which they now mildly apologise. It has been central to the Government's legislative programme since 1987. They cannot say, "We sold you a second-hand car in 1987 and now we are sorry that a couple of tyres are bald." Rather, they should be saying, "We sold you a second-hand car in 1987 and it is now a total write-off." In any other walk of life, a substantial response would be required for such an error of judgment and such an infliction on the people of this country. The experiment has been a hugely expensive failure. Our estimate is that it has cost £10 billion.

In the past couple of weeks my constituency has been told that we cannot have our education capital allocation of £17.4 million because the financial position will not allow it. Instead, we are to have about a third of that--£6.5 million--which is considerably less than the single capital allocation to the city technology college, the one school which received massive Government handouts in the constituency. When I discovered that frugality was the order of the day on those matters, but that the Government had £10 billion to waste on the ludicrous experiment of the poll tax, I got some idea of the warped values of Conservative Members. I am glad to see that the Leader of the House agrees that so far £10 billion has been wasted on the poll tax in relief payments and implementation costs. I know for certain that, in any walk of life other than Conservative Cabinets, if an error of the magnitude of the poll tax occurred, heads would roll. If the board of directors of a company or a local authority made a horrendous mess of its financial calculations, or if the management of a football club said that it intended to build a new stand that would cost a few million and that stand fell down after two years, someone would be held responsible. Why is that not happening in the Government? Who is responsible for what has happened? Who will own up and say, "Fair cop, Guv ; it was me"? We see no sign whatever of that happening, yet undoubtedly if it happened in any other walk of life the Government would look for a scapegoat. The Government are ducking their responsibility. It seems that there will not even be any resignations. Conservative Members will do their triple somersaults and stand on their heads and feel no obligation to resign because the principle that they supported has been turned over. I would certainly feel much better if the Government did one simple thing--I am sure that the Leader of the House will not do it, but perhaps someone else will. They

Column 1163

should simply say, "We are sorry. We got it horribly wrong and you in the Labour party--look me in the eye, watch my lips--were spot on in all the criticisms you made."

My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), is a reliable witness. He has stated this evening that he warned in Standing Committee--I was not there, but I am sure that his statement is accurate-- what would happen if the Government went down the path they proposed. He said that it would be vastly expensive, grossly unfair and totally unworkable-- [Interruption.] Conservative Members are becoming more and more agitated, except those who did not vote for the poll tax throughout.

Mr. Raffan : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Grocott : I shall not give way, because the Leader of the House and I have only eight minutes each to reply to the debate. It is astonishing that the Government could be so dreadfully wrong and we could be so entirely right, but the Government do not apologise. I see Conservative Members' indignation.

Mr. Raffan rose --

Mr. Grocott : I give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he clearly wishes to explain.

Mr. Raffan : The hon. Gentleman paints a mythical fantasy picture of the unity of his party, yet we all know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) resigned because he disagreed with fellow Labour Members on the Front Bench about the Labour party's original proposals, to which we have already had 62 alterations.

Mr. Grocott : I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been around to witness recent developments on these matters, but he is delving into ancient history now. We know perfectly well what his party said and did. We know who is culpable.

I make one appeal to the Government, as we are in a mood of conciliation. We shall not be too triumphant about the poll tax ; we shall just say, "We told you so." But how about a little fairness in the tactics employed in the pre-election mood which seems to be gripping everyone at present? Let us have a little honesty about the way in which programmes are being costed.

I listened to the Secretary of State for the Environment yesterday. I noticed that, not surprisingly, all his effort was directed at seeking to destroy our policy documents on local government finance. Of course, he has the whole weight of the civil service to cost our proposals. Unashamedly the Government constantly use their civil servants--6,000 of them in Marsham street--to cost and examine everything we do. If the Government want to do that, fair enough. I suppose that we will do it after the next election when we are in government.

I should like the Government to adopt a little consistency. I listened with interest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) about his endeavours in the matter, but I have been trying in vain by means of parliamentary questions to have some of the Tory election pledges costed. One would think that one could do it by means of a parliamentary question. I understand that, if the Tory party wins the next election, one thing that it will do is to allow all schools to opt out,

Column 1164

as it is so fond of schools opting out. Of course, the Leader of the House is particularly well qualified to answer on this matter, because he was responsible for some of the errors made.

I should have thought that it was reasonable to seek to find out from the Department of Education and Science what it would cost if all schools opted out, given that Ministers have told us repeatedly that there are costs associated with opting out. There are many costs, but one of them is the transitional grants which are paid to schools which opt out. I asked what I regarded as two simple questions, and one does not need to be a top-ranking civil servant to answer them. I asked what would be the average cost in transitional grants of schools that opted out. The Government found difficulty in answering that question, but eventually I was given a list of the schools that had opted out and the cost in each case. I worked out the average, although perhaps the Government could not. The average cost was about £25,000 per school.

I hope that the next question is clear to the House. It was obviously not clear to the Ministers or officials at the DES. It was :

"To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science ... what would be the total cost in payment of transitional grants, assuming that the present average payment was maintained, if every local education authority school opted for grant-maintained status." Reading between the lines, I was trying to find out what the Tory party's election manifesto, as it developed, would cost us. The answer that I received from the DES was :

"The levels of these grants are reviewed annually in the light of the Government's spending priorities for education and other services. It is not therefore possible to project a figure for the total cost if every local authority school opted for grant-maintained status."--[ Official Report, 7 March 1991 ; Vol. 187, c. 229 .] My word, I bet it would be possible to determine the cost if that policy was in our manifesto. I have not the slightest doubt that Ministers would be jumping up at the Dispatch Box with the figures. In this slightly frenetic pre-election atmosphere, let us have some consistency in the Government's approach. If they cost election manifestos, let them cost their own as well as the Labour party's manifesto. Let us have a little humility from the Government too. It would be wrong to sit down without mentioning the other piece of bad news for the Government this week, although they do not seem to be too worried about it. Perhaps they represent seats where there are no problems of unemployment. The bad news this week is the unemployment figures. Again, a central plank of the Government's case is that all the misery they have put us through in the past 12 years can be excused because they are good at managing the economy and can be tough. They are not very good at managing employment in the economy. Unemployment is now 2 million, even on the Government's fiddled figures, and we know well enough how the methods of calculation have been changed over the years.

Representing a constituency in the west midlands where we have been hard hit twice by the recessions engineered by the Government in the past 12 years, I always find it amusing that the Government talk as if the 85,000 people thrown out of work since the previous month's figures were published are not really 85,000 people because the figures have to be seasonally adjusted. I wish that the Government would distinguish between people, who have lost their jobs in the past month who are actually out of

Column 1165

work and the people who are merely seasonally adjusted. It is apparent to the people who have lost their jobs. That is the scale of the economic failure that we have suffered under this Government. Hardly a day goes by without some further evidence arising of the way in which they have mismanaged our affairs in the past 12 years. We end this Session until the Easter recess with a little election atmosphere in the air, which is reflected in the comments of several hon. Members. We are told that the Prime Minister has been reading the opinion polls and that they tell him that he is the most popular, warm and caring human being since polling began. I hope that he believes those polls. I understand that he thinks that there may be a window of electoral opportunity. If he believes that, I invite him, please, to jump. Perhaps he feels that he will have an electoral opportunity in the next few months. I hope that this is the last time that we shall have a debate such as this under this Government. Like all my right hon. and hon. Friends, I look forward to a general election to put some of these problems right, and the sooner it comes the better.

8 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : I agree with one comment--and one comment only-- made by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). I have learnt that this is an impossible debate to answer, because so many different points are raised and I do not have the luxury that the hon. Gentleman has of not answering most of the questions. Were it not for the disgraceful abuse of procedures--not only bogus points of order, but the bogus point made by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)--I should have had longer in which to speak. Several hon. Members specifically asked me to draw certain issues to the attention of one of my right hon. Friends. I shall do so if I cannot deal with all the points tonight.

I shall begin by dealing with one of the points made by the hon. Member for The Wrekin because it was absolutely ludicrous. He mentioned the figure of £10 billion and used the word "wasted" in relation to the community charge. In the same breath, he talked about honesty in figures. I do not think that I have heard a more dishonest figure for a long time. It is typical of the outrageous misinformation campaign waged by the hon. Gentleman and shows how little the Labour party understands about these issues.

How did he reach the figure of £10 billion? It must include much of the money spent by central Government on rebates, benefits to students and others and the transitional relief scheme. Those schemes are designed to reduce the community charge for those on lower incomes. If he describes that as money wasted on administration, he has hit the wrong target. It is typical of the way in which he tries to distort the facts. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that what he calls waste has benefited many people and has been well targeted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) spoke about his local theatre. I am a strong supporter of local theatre, so I understand why he chose to speak on that subject. As he said, I am familiar with the Eastern Arts regional association. While he was

Column 1166

speaking, I wrote down that I would respond by making it clear that, although I should pass on his comments to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, it is an issue for Eastern Arts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West knows that the arm's-length principle applies to arts funding. He acknowledged that and he knows that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts has no direct power to intervene. I hope that the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West will be drawn to the attention of Eastern Arts, and I understand his constituency interest. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) raised a couple of points in his entertaining speech. I shall deal first with his comments on parliamentary questions, to which I have two responses. He said that he had experienced some difficulty with the Table Office about what were described as campaigning questions. The Procedure Committee is undertaking an investigation into oral questions--I have given evidence to it--and he will be able to put his points to it.

The right hon. Gentleman also said that he had been told that questions were too expensive. There are good reasons for that, because there must be a limit to the expense of any one question. However, I have told the Procedure Committee that we must have a more accurate figure on the cost of answering questions. Perhaps we shall have to make a few changes.

The right hon. Gentleman's point of substance was about people escaping from open prisons. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who has responsibility for prisons, will shortly discuss it with him directly. I hope that that will help to overcome some of the procedural problems that he encountered.

In their moving speeches, my hon. Friends the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) referred to the hostages. I fully understand why they raised that important matter on the Adjournment debate. We all hope that progress can be made before we rise for Easter. My hon. Friends were right to remind us of the plight of the hostages and we share their concern. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster that the four he mentioned are far from being forgotten. I shall pass on my hon. Friends' comments, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South said, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs needs no reminding.

I have one or two comments to make about the hostages, because it is one of the most important points to be raised tonight. As the Prime Minister told the House on 28 February, the fate of our hostages is ever present in our minds. We are determined to secure their release and we are doing everything that we can to bring it about. We believe that Iran has decisive influence. We are pressing the Iranians to live up to their undertaking to use their humanitarian influence to achieve the release of our hostages. We have made clear to them the importance that we attach to this issue and we have told them unequivocally that there can be no prospect of developing a bilateral relations until if the hostages are freed. The freeing of the hostages would transform our relationship. We are also encouraging the Syrians to maintain their helpful efforts on our behalf. The extension of their influence in Lebanon lends importance to their role.

Column 1167

My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster mentioned especially the case of Roger Cooper. We remain concerned about his continued imprisonment in Tehran since 1985 and regard it as wholly unjustified. We hope that the Iranians will release him soon. Following reports in the Tehran Times which refer to him, we have been in contact with our charge d'affaires in Tehran. We have made it clear to the Iranians that further advances in our relations are imposssible unless Roger Cooper and our hostages in Lebanon are released. I hope that that makes our position clear and I am grateful to my hon. Friends for raising the issue.

I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). There is currently a substantial expansion in higher education and, clearly, we wish the deaf to be included in that. Several things have been done to help the disabled, including the deaf. Under the loan scheme there was special treatment for people with disabilities. The Department of Education and Science offers a capital grant scheme to enable independent colleges of further education to improve facilities for the disabled. The hon. Gentleman referred especially to the new disabled students' allowance which, when I was Secretary of State for Education and Science, increased significantly from £765 to £1,000 a year. He also referred to the two new allowances--one for equipment of up to £3,000 over the whole course and one for non-medical care costs of up to £4,000 a year. The latter two are likely to be especially useful to the deaf.

I was interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about the allowances not working and about the people for whom they were meant not having access to the funds. I shall draw his comments to the attention of the Secretary of State for Education and Science. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) raised the issue of tourism. I know of his great interest in tourism, which plays a considerable role in our constituencies. I have seen the effect of the Gulf conflict on tourism in central London and elsewhere. People from overseas had unnecessary fears about coming to this country. However, they are coming back, and I hope that they will continue to do so.

My hon. Friend knows that tourism is achieved by a mixture of public and private expenditure--especially private sector expenditure, and I shall comment on that in a moment. He referred briefly to the grant to the British Tourist Authority, but I am sure that he will acknowledge that direct Government support, through the statutory tourist boards, amounts to much more than he said. Indeed, it amounts to about £74 million. The Government contribute in a number of other ways to tourism. It is estimated that Government support for other tourism-related activities exceeds £380 million. I want to get the figures on record to show--

Mr. Gregory rose --

Mr. MacGregor : I am sorry that I cannot give way.

The Government make a substantial contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for York and I know that many of the excellent examples in tourism, and so many of the substantial changes and developments in recent years, are due to the efforts of private enterprise and to entrepreneurial activity. We have done much to encourage

Column 1168

that. The far better facilities and services have come about through a mixture of private enterprise and of public support, especially the former.

I was determined to make the point to the hon. Member for Coventry, South- East (Mr. Nellist) that has been made on so many occasions and must be made again when one listens to his remarks. It needs to be rammed home again and again whose fault it was that the situation arose and how many opportunities were given to Saddam Hussein to avoid a conflict after his aggressive invasion on 2 August and before 15 January, which he did not take up.

The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East raised two points about sanctions. It is too soon to say how or when sanctions should be modified. The Security Council will need to consider carefully and will need to see Iraqi compliance with the Security Council resolutions, especially resolution 686. Thereafter, a selective and progressive approach is required. Clearly, that is a condition. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East referred to the defence components exhibition. It is organised by the Defence Export Services Organisation, which was set up under a Labour Government in 1966. All proposed arms exports are considered case by case and are subject to stringent licensing procedures. Before a licence is granted, a wide variety of considerations is taken into account. It does not follow that, because an item is exhibited at the defence components and equipment exhibition, an export licence will be granted.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) raised a number of points about homelessness. As I have only another 30 seconds, I cannot give much response, except to say that he will know that substantial sums are now being devoted to that by the Government. The hon. Gentleman also took us into an interesting discourse on the history of satanic abuse. His main point was to draw some of that to the attention of social workers. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health has said that firmer guidance will be issued this summer to local authorities in a new version of the publication "Working Together".

My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) tempted me by saying that I was the only remaining Norfolk Minister to whom he had not made representations on his issue. I will have to give him a different, but equally disappointing, answer tonight. He will know that we are in the period of Budget purdah, so it is not possible for me to say anything on the matter this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House, at its rising on Thursday 28th March, do adjourn until Monday 15th April and, at its rising on Friday 3rd May, do adjourn until Tuesday 7th May.

Mr. Jacques Arnold : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order during a debate that is dedicated to Back Benchers for a Front- Bench Opposition spokesman to waste our valuable time in playing silly games for the benefit of journalists?

Is it in order for another Front-Bench Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), to wind up by covering subjects such as city technology colleges and unemployment, which were not raised in the debate, and to ignore important issues, such as the one that I raised about the Punjab, the one raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack)

Column 1169

on the hostages and the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) on the interests of caravan dwellers? Is it in order that our debate should be wholly subverted by the Labour Front Bench?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : It occasionally happens that points of order are raised during private Members' time. The Chair always regrets that, because it cuts into private Members' time, which is especially relevant when debates are timed. This is one of the few occasions in the parliamentary year when virtually any point can be raised as long as it is prefaced by the comment that we should have a debate on it before we adjourn.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read .

Question , That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to .

Bill accordingly read a Second time .

Question , That the Bill be now read a Third time, put and agreed to .

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed .

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(1) (Consolidated Fund Bills) , That the House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. David Davis.]

Next Section

Home Page