House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Jun 1991

Column 407

Business of the House

3.30 pm

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

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : Yes, Sir

The business for next week will be as follows :

Monday 10 June----Timetable motion, followed by proceedings on the Dangerous Dogs Bill.

Tuesday 11 June----Progress in Committee of the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill.

Wednesday 12 June----Conclusion of Committee and remaining stages of the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill.

Thursday 13 June----Opposition Day (13th allotted day).

There will be a debate on an Opposition motion described as "The Impact of the Government's Recessionary Policies on Business". Friday 14 June---- Private Members' motions.

Monday 17 June----Committee and remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill.

The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 12 June to consider Document No. 6033/90, relating to supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products.

[Relevant documents :

Wednesday 12 June

European Standing Committee B

Relevant European Community Document

6033/90 Medicinal Products (Legal Protection)

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

HC 11-xxv (1989-90) and HC 29-xxii (1990-91)]

Dr. Cunningham : Why are the Government introducing a timetable motion on the Bill to control dangerous dogs, which the Opposition do not intend to oppose? Is it not a ridiculous state of affairs that the Government want to guillotine the debate on a Bill which, broadly speaking and in principle, the Opposition welcome? That will force debate and decisions on the Bill into the middle of the night and early hours of the morning when, with proper agreement across the Floor, the House could have a far more sensible debate on that very important problem--and almost certainly reach far more sensible decisions. It must be unprecedented for a Government to cut short debate on a Bill that the Opposition support in principle. Is not the Government's real problem that they want to timetable the Bill to prevent their own supporters from causing difficulties when they rightly intend to vote for a dog registration scheme--which we will certainly support, and which, as all the evidence shows, has the overwhelming support of the public.

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North) : Why did not the Opposition support one in the past?

Dr. Cunningham : The hon. Gentleman, who bellows at me from a sedentary position, must have a short memory. We have consistently supported a dog registration scheme, and we will do so again.

Column 408

I invite the Leader of the House to arrange with the Government Chief Whip a free vote on that issue--with which we would also co-operate--to ensure that the House genuinely reaches an honest decision on whether Britain should have a dog registration scheme. I know that the Leader of the House has not been able to find time for a debate about European Community affairs next week. May I impress on him the urgent need for such a debate, given the important developments that we have seen throughout Europe--not just in the Community? Can the debate be held before the European summit that is to take place in Luxembourg towards the end of the month? I believe that there would be widespread support for it. Given the current interest in European developments among Conservative Members, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will want to satisfy the wishes of his right hon. and hon. Friends as well as helping the Opposition. Why are we to spend next week debating yet another Local Government Finance Bill, which, by definition, will perpetuate the existence of the poll tax for another two or three years? Why cannot a proposal to abolish the poll tax immediately be embodied in a simple clause, or group of clauses? The Opposition would co-operate fully in order to remove this abysmal, capricious tax from the statute book at the earliest opportunity.

When do the Government intend to arrange a debate on their own White Paper on the environment, "Our Common Inheritance", which was published with great fanfares nine months ago but has now disappeared without trace? Are the Government now putting important decisions about environmental policy on the back shelf because the environment is no longer considered to be politically opportune or fashionable? A debate on the White Paper would be in the interests of the House and the country.

Mr. MacGregor : I believe that the House and the whole country think it important for us to put the Dangerous Dogs Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible--

Dr. Cunningham : We have already co-operated to accelerate its progress.

Mr. MacGregor : I am explaining why we are tabling a timetable motion. It is important to get the Bill on the statute book, not only to protect innocent people who may be subjected to the behaviour of fighting dogs but to ensure that the breeding of such dogs is stopped so that matters go no further. I believe that, if we are to do that as quickly as possible, it will be necessary to take the Bill through the House in the way that the Government suggest. I also believe that that is what the House wants.

If the Opposition do not wish to oppose the Bill, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said--and I was very pleased to hear him say it-- they will no doubt assist us in accelerating the debate. We are taking steps to ensure that the Bill gets through, but--as hon. Members will see when the timetable motion is tabled later this afternoon--we are allowing as much time as possible for the Bill to be debated on the one day allotted to it. I think that the House will want to get it through in a day, and the guillotine motion will ensure that that happens.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are allowing plenty of time for sensible debate. Let me point out that we shall have even more time if we debate the guillotine motion briefly : then we can get on to the Bill quickly. That would

Column 409

suit me as much as it would suit the hon. Gentleman. He will see when he reads the motion that we are allowing plenty of time for debate on the dog registration issue.

I agree that Europe is a very important subject, and I hope to arrange a debate in the near future. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will take place before the European summit in Luxembourg. I am not sure that I am helping the Opposition in arranging the debate, as it will certainly expose the divisions in their ranks, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for it.

The reason why we have not introduced a single clause to this effect in the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, is that it would then be necessary to replace the community charge with an alternative system. The council tax that we propose deals, in a way that the Opposition's proposals would not, with all--or virtually all--the defects of both the old domestic rating system and the community charge. I defy the Opposition to propose a single clause to cover all the alternatives to the community charge.

Dr. Cunningham : I did not say that.

Mr. MacGregor : If the hon. Gentleman did not say that, he is demonstrating once again his naivety by suggesting that we can leave in limbo the question of local government finance. It was ridiculous to suggest a single clause.

As for the White Paper on the environment, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have frequently discussed environmental matters in the House and have pursued many of the action proposals in the White Paper, which are being followed up. I hope to be able to arrange a debate on the environment because I agree that it is an important subject. I should be only too delighted to have a progress report on all that has been done to follow up the White Paper, but there is a difficulty in fitting it in, given the fact that we have a heavy legislative programme.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : Would my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on homelessness in London? Is he aware that today there are more than 20,000 vacant council houses in London, which represents 20 houses for every person sleeping rough in London tonight? Is that not a scandal on which we should have another debate?

Mr. MacGregor : Certainly I think that other reports have drawn attention to the fact that a number of Labour authorities have many vacant houses which have remained vacant for a long time. I agree that it is right that attention should be drawn to that fact.

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland) : Where does the Leader of the House expect any opposition to the Dangerous Dogs Bill to come from? Does he not think imposing a guillotine means there is more chance of us getting the legislation wrong than if proper consideration were allowed?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, his right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor introduced important provisions earlier this week for civil legal aid, which seem to restrict greatly the right of ordinary citizens to appear before the courts. When will the House have an opportunity to debate those proposals?

Mr. MacGregor : Let me be clear on the first point. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the House will agree and

Column 410

that the Bill will go through quickly, that will be ideal and admirable, and it is what I should like to see happen. However, there are quite a number of amendments to the Bill, so we want a proper timetable to get it through as quickly as possible, because we all agree that it is urgent.

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways--he cannot say that we do not need a timetable to ensure that the Bill is properly considered and also say that it will go through quickly. We are trying to get the Bill through the House as quickly as possible, concomitant with sufficient debate to get it right. I believe that we have it right, but it is right to allow time for the amendments to be discussed.

As far as the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Lord Chancellor has made it clear that he has an open mind especially on the main option but also on others canvassed in the paper, and has allowed until 31 October for consultation. We have a crowded programme, so I do not know at this stage whether we shall have the opportunity to have a debate in the House before the end of the consultation period or afterwards, but I note the hon. Gentleman's request.

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton) : Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, when he carries through the experiment that he announced in written questions yesterday dealing with the Procedure Committee's recommendations on Lords amendments, which one hopes will make it simpler for the House to carry through and understand the way in which Lords amendments are dealt with, there is a notice on the Order Paper so that hon. Members have the new procedure drawn to their attention? Perhaps the House would attend during the Lords amendments to ensure that the new procedure works to their benefit.

Mr. MacGregor : I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to his Committee for the proposals for dealing with Lords amendments. I am also grateful for the opportunity to draw to the House's attention the written answer which shows how we propose to proceed. At this stage, it is still experimental, and in a sense it is a dummy run to see whether the suggestions by my hon. Friend's Committee will benefit the House and be advantageous in considering Lords amendments. Once again, it is an example of the constructive work done by my hon. Friend's Committee ; I pay tribute to him and make it clear that, once again, the Government are responding positively.

Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, Central and Royton) : On the question of an early end to the poll tax, is the Leader of the House aware that my constituents who, I think are fairly typical, are now complaining because they are confused and misunderstand the different schemes to rebate the poll tax and subtract £140-- to such an extent that the council in Oldham is now receiving complaints at twice last year's level? That is likely to continue until the poll tax is ended. Is there not some way in which we could debate bringing forward the ending of the poll tax? At least that would help the Government, if nothing else.

Mr. MacGregor : There is absolutely no confusion about the switch of the £140 from which the hon. Gentleman's constituents are greatly benefiting. I hope that he will draw to their attention the benefits that they are getting from it.

Column 411

On our alternative--the council tax--as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are consulting for just over another week. The Government will then come forward with proposals. We are moving very fast on this matter--as fast as is practicable. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the proposals that we shall make are much more beneficial to his constituents than the proposals of his own party.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement next week on the plight of those British subjects whose careers were shattered and possessions plundered during the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait? Will he ask his ministerial colleagues to consider whether it would be fair to compensate them out of the Iraqi assets that are frozen in this country?

Mr. MacGregor : I cannot promise a debate on the point that my hon. Friend raises, but I will certainly draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : If we can prove conclusively that the Iraqi Government have breached United Nations resolution 688 and have resumed oppression against the Kurdish peoples, would that be sufficient to warrant a statement from a Minister?

Mr. MacGregor : There is no evidence that there is any systematic or widespread repression of the Kurds at present. We are in close contact with other joint force members to agree ways of providing reassurance to the Kurdish population if and when forces are withdrawn.

Mr. Campbell-Savours rose --

Mr. MacGregor : If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I wanted to make that point absolutely clear. On his hypothesis, clearly in that situation we would obviously consider making a statement to the House, and I can give him that assurance.

Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South) : Given that plans are afoot for the imposition of an expensive additional layer of regional government, which in our case would be run from Newcastle, not Teesside, and given that the development corporations and many of the Government's presently active inner-city initiatives will be scrapped, would it be possible for us at an early opportunity to debate the Labour party's proposals for the northern region and other English regions?

Mr. MacGregor : I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early opportunity in Government time, but I am sure that he will be able to find opportunities in the House for making the cogent criticisms that I am sure he would wish to develop.

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East) : Given the Prime Minister's stated wish to raise the political profile of Edinburgh by holding a European Community meeting there, why is the Leader of the House undermining that wish by not holding even one Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Scotland's capital city?

Mr. MacGregor : I know that several Scottish Grand Committee meetings are coming forward in the immediate future--[ Hon. Members :-- "Not in Edinburgh."] That is a matter that I would obviously have to look at.

Column 412

Mr. Robert Boscawen (Somerton and Frome) : My right hon. Friend will know that the Secretary of State for Defence made a far-reaching and important statement on the future of the armed forces, particularly as regards the size of the Army. That will affect many of our constituents. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that we will be able to debate that matter well before the White Paper is introduced, so that we can put our concerns to the Secretary of State and also show up the disastrous review that took place in the 1970s and 1960s when the Labour party was in power?

Mr. MacGregor : I cannot give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance as to the exact timing of any debate, because there is a great deal to be fitted into the programme at the moment, but I can assure him that there will be a number of occasions in the comparatively near future when we will be able to debate these matters.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week on the rules governing Ministers--which, as he knows, are based on the principle that Ministers should order their affairs so that there is no conflict between their public duty and their private interests? Will he make a statement about the four Cabinet members who are members of Lloyd's, at a time when Lloyd's members are organising a campaign to obtain tax concessions which will directly benefit Lloyd's members, including the four members of the Cabinet? How can that conflict of interest be maintained? Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement making it clear that Ministers should divest themselves of those private financial interests?

Mr. MacGregor : The rules relating to Ministers' interests are very clear and, I am sure, are being wholly abided by. I do not see any need for a statement on that matter next week.

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh) : Earlier this week, I may have inadvertently misled the House when I referred to changes in the rules relating to people who suffer from diabetes which seem to have been introduced by an order without any debate or discussion in the House. I distinctly remember the announcement that those who suffer from diabetes would receive their medication free. Earlier, I misled the House into believing that those who suffer from diabetes but do not take medicine as their diabetes is controlled by diet would no longer receive their medication, testing equipment and other things free of charge. I have since learnt that the position is worse than that. Only those on insulin will have their medication free. The House and the country have been misled. There should be a statement in the House at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. MacGregor : I do not know about that matter, so I will have to discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Is the Leader of the House aware that Question 13 to the Home Secretary was not reached? Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement about free television licences for old- age pensioners? It must be wrong for old-age pensioners on one side of the street to receive free television licences while those on the other side of the street do not. Some pensioners in the same warden accommodation do not

Column 413

qualify for free television licences while others do. Some pensioners who have been in such accommodation for five years qualify, while those who have only just arrived do not. The Prime Minister talks about a classless society. Let us see that put into practice and have less talk. There should be free television licences for all old- age pensioners.

Mr. MacGregor : I did not notice that Question 13 had not been reached, but I assume that it was tabled by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and that he has just found a way of making his point to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, that is not the correct use of business questions. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolsover will, with his usual persistence, table his question again.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : In the light of the interesting speech by Mikhail Gorbachev in association with his Nobel prize, would it be possible next week or the week after to debate the bipartisan amendment to early-day motion 891, which is linked to the plea that the British dependants Maria and Anna Gordievsky and their mother Leila should be allowed to join their father in this country after being separated for six years? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the best way to show that there is a new USSR and not one that is still controlled by the KGB?

Mr. MacGregor : I cannot arrange a debate on that in Government time next week. However, in relation to early-day motion 891, the Government welcome the programme link-up between the United Kingdom and Soviet Parliaments broadcast on 5 June. We entirely agree that the Gordievsky family should be allowed to be reunited in Britain without any further delay.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : In view of the mounting concern in Britain about what could happen to the Kurds if the allies decide to leave northern Iraq, surely it is necessary for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to at least tell us the allies' intentions? Do the allies intend to leave or not? Why should the Kurds be at the tender mercy of Saddam Hussein and his thugs? We need a statement as quickly as possible so that we can know precisely what the allies intend to do.

Mr. MacGregor : I have already said something about that in reply to an earlier question. I will convey the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. As I said earlier, no doubt at an appropriate time, information will be made available to the House.

Mr. Michael Grylls (Surrey, North-West) : As the former and very successful Minister for small businesses, will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate at the earliest opportunity on the conditions of bank lending to smaller firms? My right hon. Friend will agree that it is not an issue that can be dealt with sensibly in superficial questions at Question Time. It is a deep subject. It is not an easy matter, but it would be right for the House to debate it at this time.

Mr. MacGregor : As my hon. Friend knows, I yield to no one in my enthusiasm for encouraging and helping small businesses. He and I have done many things together in that regard. He will be aware of the comments that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made on Tuesday on the matter and of the discussions that my right hon. Friend

Column 414

the Chancellor of the Exchequer is having at present. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate on the matter next week, but I continue to take a close interest in everything to do with small businesses. At an appropriate time, I should be delighted to have a debate on the subject.

Mr. John Garrett (Norwich, South) : The Leader of the House knows that the Government's response to the Procedure Committee's report on Select Committees places the status of the Comptroller and Auditor General in jeopardy. Why did the Leader of the House allow that response to be published when clearly it had not been thought through? When will he make a statment on the subject?

Mr. MacGregor : It was thought through. I know that there are different views in the House, but the Government's position on the matter was thought through. I discussed it with several people. I hope to be able to introduce new Standing Orders on some aspects of the report--those on which it is for the Government to act--shortly.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) : Does not my right hon. Friend recall that this Parliament of all Parliaments has imposed more curtailments of free speech through the device of the guillotine? The sophistry that my right hon. Friend wove in responding to the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), did not address the question why, when the House seems to accept that the curtailment of dogs with dangerous tendencies for the sake of the general public has great support in the country, the Government whom I support insist on imposing yet another of these wretched guillotines to deny free speech. Does not my right hon. Friend remember that we legislate in haste and repent at leisure?

Mr. MacGregor : It is because I believe that many people in the House, as in the country, want us to take action on the matter as quickly as possible. If my hon. Friend is right that there is agreement, clearly we shall get the Bill through well within the terms that we have set down in the guillotine.

Mr. Cryer : Not without proper debate.

Mr. MacGregor : If there is general agreement, that is what will happen. If, as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) seems to suggest, there is great opposition to the Bill, that makes it desirable to put the Bill through quickly. In the timetable motion we shall allow plenty of time for what is after all a short Bill, which the whole House apparently supports. We shall allow plenty of time for the issues to be debated.

Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde) : Will the Leader of the House arrange for a short debate to deal with the traumatic problem faced by the families of Scottish people who have been found dead or murdered on the streets of London? The families are having immense problems in bringing the body back home so that they can deal with it in their own fashion. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Home Secretary knows about the problem and can help prevent Scottish families from suffering such a traumatic problem?

Column 415

Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind, he will bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who will examine it immediately.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : Can my right hon. Friend provide an early opportunity to debate the minimum import price into the European Community of raspberries? [Laughter.] Hon. Members find it amusing, but Tayside in Scotland grows more than 80 per cent. of the raspberries grown commercially within the European Community. That product is at risk, because the minimum import price runs out at the end of July, in the middle of the picking season. It must be extended and the European Community must be made to realise that the industry, which receives no public support and is a great asset to Scotland and the United Kingdom, could be put at risk. We will not accept the minimum import price being negotiated away to allow eastern European imports into the European Community.

Mr. MacGregor : I know well, knowing that part of Scotland well, of the importance of that industry to that part of Scotland. When I was Minister of Agriculture, I had on a number of occasions at this time of year to deal with the alleged dumping of raspberries, when the real difficulty was getting the evidence. I assure my hon. Friend that a great deal of attention is paid to the issue. I am sure that he has already drawn the matter to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I shall do so as well.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter (Hartlepool) : Some months ago, I raised with the Leader of the House the question of British hostages. At that time I reminded him that, rightly, diplomatic activity should have considerable priority. As no progress seems evident, will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate so that our voice may be heard? Alternatively, will he arrange for a statement to be made to update the House on what is happening?

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman will know of the considerable efforts in relation to hostages that the British Government, in particular Ministers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, have been making. In connection with one group, the Minister of State at that Department hopes to make a visit soon. I assure the hon. Gentleman that constant efforts are being made. If and when it is appropriate to make a statement, I shall make sure that one is made.

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South) : May we have a debate in the near future on the progress of the talks in Northern Ireland? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time for the House to show its total support for the efforts that are being made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? That would show those who are at present involved in slaughter in Northern Ireland that hon. Members in all parts of the House and people throughout the country, in every constitutional party, are in favour of reaching some sort of accommodation. That message should be spelled out clearly by the House at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. MacGregor : I agree with my hon. Friend, and the whole House will welcome the news that agreement has now been reached on the outstanding procedural points and that the four political parties taking part in the talks

Column 416

have decided to begin plenary sessions on 17 June. We hope that the painstaking preparatory work conducted during the last five weeks--I pay warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in that respect--will have laid a firm foundation for substantive negotiations. There will be other opportunities before the House rises, not only during Question Time, to discuss Northern Ireland issues.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West) : May we please have a debate on the 17th report of the Committee of Public Accounts entitled "National Health Service : Patient Transport Services"? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Committee unanimously considered it unacceptable that many services in our major cities are not meeting the minimum emergency standards? Does he know that, in many cities, such as Leicester, the ambulance services are overworked and are having the greatest difficulty meeting the needs imposed on them by a growing and aging population? When shall we debate that other defect in the national health service?

Mr. MacGregor : As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are procedures for dealing with Public Accounts Committee debates and for selecting the topics. I cannot tell him at this stage when the next debate will be.

Sir Ian Gilmour (Chesham and Amersham) : Apart from the important question of principle raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge- Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), may I ask my right hon. Friend to explain what possible excuse there can be for guillotining a Bill that the whole House supports?

Mr. MacGregor : I have already said that the need is for speed. We are giving a great deal of time for the Bill to be dealt with, and if there is such great agreement, perhaps we shall finish the debate well within the timing of the guillotine.

Mr. Peter Hain (Neath) : Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a statement to be made by the Government about the serious situation facing Post Office Counters, where management are refusing to go to arbitration to settle a serious dispute on the basis of a 7 per cent. pay offer which is way below the operative retail prices index, and which represents a 1.2 per cent. cut in living standards ? Is he further aware that it is the lowest public sector pay offer at present under way ? Do the Government agree with the management in making that offer, when another public sector worker, the Governor of the Bank of England, has received a 17 per cent. pay offer, repressenting an increase of £22,500, which is double the rates of maximum pay received in a whole year by a Post Office Counters worker ?

Mr. MacGregor : Those are matters for Post Office Counters management and the unions. I see no opportunity for a debate next week.

Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford) : Will the Leader of the House consider an urgent debate on the re-emergence and growth of Militant Tendency within the Labour movement and the Labour party so that we can demonstrate to the British people that the Labour party have not been successful, in any whit, regard or particular, in eliminating that problem from the ranks of the Labour party and the Labour movement ?

Column 417

Mr. MacGregor : I agree with my hon. Friend. Other events, including a by-election, may show that Militant Tendency is still alive and kicking in the Labour party. However, my hon. Friend must find other opportunities--as I am sure he will--to raise the matter next week.

Mr. David Young (Bolton, South-East) : Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange a debate on Gibraltar before the summer recess so that the House can discuss the worrying harassment of British citizens by the Spanish at the border crossing ? We could then also consider the controversial Brussels agreement--the ill-conceived airport agreement--which is doing much to wreck the potential commercial viability of the colony, and the European Community dimension as it affects Gibraltar.

Mr. MacGregor : I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate specifically on that issue. But he mentioned the European Community dimension and, as I have already told the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), I hope very soon to announce a debate on European matters, at which that subject could be raised.

Next Section

Home Page