House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Dec 1991

Mr. Speaker : Again, I will allow 15 minutes of questions from Back- Bench Members on the statement. At 4.25 pm, we shall move on to the business statement.

Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only first mortgages but second, third and fourth mortgages, hire purchase catalogue debts and other loans and debts, too, cause the problem? Many of those do not qualify for assistance through social security, and some are granted after the claimant goes on to social security. Is it not time that we insisted that all secondary lenders take into account the overall commitments of the borrower, and that they should say no rather more frequently?

Mr. Newton : Many lenders may well have drawn that conclusion from the experience that we have all shared in recent months. I have no doubt that they will take note of my hon. Friend's words.

Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, Central and Royton) : Is not this proposal rather inadequate and late? Should not the Government shoulder the financial responsibility for rescuing people who are being dispossessed, and spread that burden of costs throughout society, by means of the tax system? Surely it cannot be right to ask investors in building societies-- who received a passing mention from the Chancellor--to carry the burden of the cost of this rescue attempt. Many of them are pensioners with small savings. Are not those the very people whom we are constantly being asked to remember in the battle against inflation? We are told that their savings have been eroded. Why should we erode their savings further by making such people shoulder a burden which is really the responsibility of the whole community and of the Government?

Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman makes two points. The whole package- -the understanding outlined by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and myself--exemplifies a good co-operative arrangement between the Government and the private sector institutions involved to

Column 465

tackle the problem. One of the reasons for it is that investors in buidling societies stand to gain considerably from the arrangements. The building societies and other lenders recognise that the measures will have beneficial effects on the housing market--for example, on the volume of property that might otherwise have been repossessed.

Mr. Steve Norris (Epping Forest) : Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is a dreadful slap in the face for most people on income support to suggest that the gap between the amount of mortgage relief allowed and the amount received by lenders is a reflection of a dreadful inability to pay--especially as the vast majority of people on income support do manage on their benefit? Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures announced in his statement will prevent up to 40,000 repossessions next year by making sure that funds go directly to the lenders, and will ensure that income support funds are properly spent on those who are truly in need?

Mr. Newton : Yes, there is much force in everything that my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) : Does the Secretary of State accept that, as has been said, we give the package an unreserved welcome? None the less, will he give us an undertaking to consider the impact of the change on the level of income support, as there are now several direct debit benefits--six or seven, I believe? The long-term effects should be considered. It is not clear exactly who is eligible for the package. Does anyone having trouble with mortgage costs have the right to opt into the package?

Mr. Newton : Not quite in the way that the hon. Gentleman puts it. Under the proposed Bill, qualifying lenders will be able to opt for direct payment where income support is in place. The arrangements that we shall implement over the next few months involve a requirement for people on income support paying mortgage interest to give the Department--the Benefits Agency--verification of the interest being paid. Their consent will be sought to inform the building society so that direct payment arrangements can be put into effect. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.

On the first point, about direct debit, most building society arrangements operate by standing order rather than by direct debit, which is not quite the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent) : Although it is clear that unemployment has its part to play in the number of repossessions, is it not true that a substantial proportion of repossessions stem from the break-up of marriages and from other domestic problems? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that his package today will be of considerable assistance to families in which the principal wage earner has walked out?

Mr. Newton : Yes, I think I can. The range of circumstances that lead to people being in difficulty is wide. One of the encouraging features of our talks with the building societies over the past few weeks is that, apart from their specific undertakings in relation to cases in which income support is being paid, it is clear that they

Column 466

really mean their words about improving counselling services and generally trying to find new ways in which to help those in difficulty, whether they are on income support or not.

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : How many items can now be taken out of somebody's benefit before he gets some money to live on? Given that 255,000 families--the equivalent of a city the size of Coventry--are more than six months in arrears with their mortgage interest payments, should we not have heard from the Secretary of State today an announcement of the restoration of full mortgage payments immediately, and not after four months, to somebody who is on benefit, and an amnesty, or halt, on repossessions, instead of Elastoplast politics which are timed so nakedly for the election schedule?

Mr. Newton : The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, as I have said several times, bears no relation to reality. Building societies simply do not take action to repossess people who have been paying half the mortgage interest for four months unless there are other relevant circumstances, such as the fact that they were already in large arrears before they went on to income support.

On the other point, I had the uneasy feeling that I had missed something that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) had asked me about direct debits--direct deductions. It was his use of the phrase "direct debits" that put me off course. Those are in a different category from the deductions to which the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) referred, which are for fuel debts, rent debts and the like, and which arise as deductions from regular weekly payments of benefit. My statement concerns a specific additional payment directed to a specific purpose--the payment of mortgage interest. Different considerations therefore apply.

Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire, South-West) : My right hon. Friend will know that the problem is far more serious in certain parts of the country. Will he ask the Benefits Agency to show greater flexibility on the opening hours of offices, and to consider the temporary redeployment of staff? Many people will need face-to-face interviews rather than telephone calls on the new arrangements.

Mr. Newton : Yes. I will certainly draw the attention of the chief executive of the Benefits Agency to my hon. Friend's remarks. The chief executive's remit very much includes developing Benefits Agency services to be more flexible in responding to the needs of local communities.

Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw) : Is it not a fact that, in the housing boom of the mid-1980s, many young couples were encouraged to take out endowment mortgages from insurance companies, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not mention this afternoon? What happens if the lender does not volunteer to come into the scheme? How many couples are likely to be affected by that?

Mr. Newton : The Council of Mortgage Lenders speaks for the vast majority of the lenders whom the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I have the list, but I will not attempt to read it out. Nobody can speak for everyone who may under any circumstances lend money that may be associated with house purchase. The spirit of our discussions and the approach that has been adopted by the very large lenders, who account for a huge majority of

Column 467

those in the housing market, suggests that our proposals will have a considerable effect on people with mortgages of any kind.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the proposals are welcome, they can never remove the borrower's responsibility to realise, when taking out a mortgage, that his circumstances may change and that interest rates may go up as well as down? Bearing in mind the fact that, to my certain knowledge, there have been many cases of building societies positively encouraging people to take on commitments when any expert would know that they could not possibly maintain them, is it not highly appropriate that building societies should play their part in helping to clear up some of the mess that such irresponsibility causes?

Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend has made a not dissimilar point from that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). I have no doubt that the results of what has been happening in recent months will be borne in mind by all lenders when considering applications for both first and second mortgages.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe (Antrim, South) : I welcome the Secretary of State's proposals that will enable those people who wish to remain in their own homes to do so. I support the view that income support that is intended for mortgage payments should be made directly to the mortgage lender, but will the right hon. Gentleman remember that other people, who are not on income support, may also be in difficulties and may be unable to keep up their payments because, for example, of the cost of repairs? Such people may put their home on the market but then face difficulties in getting housed because, for example, of the cuts in the housing budget in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the scheme extends to Northern Ireland, given the statement by a building society spokesman to the effect that most of the money would go to the south-east of England and is not required for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Newton : On the latter point, it is obviously for the building societies and banks to determine the precise coverage of their arrangements, because those arrangements will differ from one institution to another depending on their circumstances and on the situation in different parts of the country. However, I shall ensure that the building societies' attention is drawn to the hon. Gentleman's point.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point, of course it is true that, despite the best efforts of some Opposition Members to suggest otherwise, the effects of the difficulties that have occurred are not by any means confined to those in receipt of income support. That is precisely why, from

Column 468

the building societies' point of view, much the biggest element of the package is the measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined, which will be worth perhaps up to £1 billion, most of which will be directed to those who are not on income support.

Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow) : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that measures have been taken to counter possible abuse by unscrupulous lenders who may take the opportunity to try to raise repayments by those who they know are having their mortgages paid directly?

Mr. Newton : We are always looking for ways of preventing abuse in the social security system, but my primary purpose this afternoon is to put in place arrangements that will effectively help with the problem of repossessions.

Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East) : Given that the Secretary of State obviously accepts that the vast bulk of the problem is caused by unemployment and by people losing their jobs, may I, against that background and in all seriousness, make a helpful suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman? He must be aware that, at the time of the next election, when every current occupant of the Treasury Bench will lose his or her ministerial job, their ministerial salaries will nevertheless continue to be paid for a further three months to allow them to adjust to a lower level of income. Might it not be a good idea to extend that principle to every other person in the country who loses his or her job?

Mr. Newton : My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is concerned with those arrangements, will no doubt have noted the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. For the moment, I must sensibly concentrate on ensuring that our arrangements for income support are directed towards those whom we are trying to help.

Mr. John Watts (Slough) : I welcome unreservedly my right hon. Friend's proposals for direct payments in respect of mortgage interest. Will he consider extending that principle to rent in respect of income support claimants? Landlords in my constituency are increasingly unwilling to let their properties to potential tenants who draw income support because of bad experiences of income support not being paid to them and large debts being accrued.

Mr. Newton : I have not adverted to housing benefit in that sense because local authorities already have wider powers to make direct payments of rent if they wish. The sensible course may be for my hon. Friend to take up the matter with his local authority. If he thinks that I could help, for example by contacting the local authority, he should give me details and I shall see what I can do.

Column 469

Business of the House

4.25 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : With permission, I should like to maka statement about the business for the week following the Christmas adjournment.

Monday --13 January----Second Reading of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [Lords]

Motion on Tourism (Northern Ireland) Order.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.

Tuesday --14 January----Debate on nuclear defence on a Government motion.

Motion on Ports Act 1991 (Levy on Disposal of land etc.) Order. Wednesday - -15 January----Remaining stages of the Coal Industry Bill.

Thursday-- 16 January----Remaining stages of the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill.

Friday-- 17 January----Private Members' Bills.

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : What has happened to Opposition Supply days? Almost a month has elapsed since the Government last gave the Opposition an opportunity to pick a subject for debate. I understand the Government's embarrassment about facing up to challenges on their mismanagement of the economy, but is it not long overdue for the Leader of the House to provide some Opposition Supply time? Under Standing Orders of the House, the official Opposition and Opposition parties generally are entitled to choose subjects for debate. Will the Leader of the House assure us that some time will be allocated when the House resumes?

Has the Leader of the House seen the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee? When shall we have an opportunity to debate the autumn statement on public expenditure, another important aspect of Government policy which the Government seem reluctant to face up to in the House? Earlier this year there was a long delay between the autumn statement and the opportunity to debate it. I would welcome an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that we shall have a debate before too long.

As we have just heard some attempts to smear me and my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench in relation to housing repossessions, may we have a debate on Government housing policy? We can then refute the claims that all those who are in difficulty are in that position because of their own errors or those of the building societies. The Government left hundreds of thousands of families no option but to take on mortgages because they stopped local authorities building houses at rents that people could afford. To set the record straight on repossessions--the Chancellor of the Exchequer accused us of exaggeration-- The Observer of 8 December referred to 300,000 repossessions next year, and analysts at Lehman Brothers referred to 250,000 repossessions next year, so our figure of 200,000 can hardly be called exaggeration.

Mr. MacGregor : On the first point, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are in a roughly similar position to that of this time last year, and there is no question of our trying to delay Opposition Supply days. I am sure that the hon.

Column 470

Gentleman will understand that we have rightly had to accommodate four days debate on Europe and the outcome of the Maastricht summit. Clearly, four days before Christmas were used to debate an important matter that was in the interests of the House. We also have an important legislative programme to get through, and business the first week back clearly shows that I have had to give priority to that.

Another important point that I am sure the House will recognise is that we shall also have to fit in at the earliest appropriate time the necessary action to fulfil the undertaking on stamp duty given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement this afternoon. I shall seek to give hon. Members notice of how we shall do that as soon as I can. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall use my best endeavours to see whether we can fit in a Supply day in the week following the first week back.

As for the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the economy generally and on the autumn statement in particular, he will recognise that there was a considerable delay last year due to specific factors of which he is well aware--not least the amount of time that we had to spend discussing the Gulf. I assure him that I note what he said and, as I have said before, I am keen to have a debate on the economy generally, public expenditure and taxation matters. I hope that I shall be able to accommodate him on that matter fairly soon after we return.

On the hon. Gentleman's final point, the fact that he picks up figures from newspaper statements does not exonerate the Opposition from attempting to be accurate and not trying to scare people. Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am always reluctant to curtail business questions, but we have a busy day today. I shall allow business questions until 4.50 pm, then we must move on. I urge hon. Members to ask about business for the week we return, not general matters.

Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford) : Now that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has been sent to Coventry so to speak, may we have a debate on the left wing and the Labour party as, despite the best endeavours of Opposition Members, the left-wing element is still there? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in a by-election in St. Martin's ward in the London borough of Lambeth last Thursday, the Conservatives gained the seat from the Labour party on a swing of 20 per cent.? May we therefore have a debate when we return after the Christmas recess to prove that when people see socialism in practice they reject it?

Mr. MacGregor : Comments on one aspect of the left-wing influence on the Labour party could be made during the debate on nuclear defence scheduled for the Tuesday we return.

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland) : Will there be a statement tomorrow on the Fisheries Council which took place earlier this week? Will the Leader of the House arrange for a more general debate on fisheries early in the new year, given the 1992 review of fishing? I am not asking for a debate like that last week which related to specific proposals for the Council.

Column 471

Mr. MacGregor : I well understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The outcome of the Fisheries Council was good for Britain. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman raised the subject because it enables me to say that we hope to have a statement on it tomorrow. As for a debate early next year, as the hon. Gentleman recognises, we have already had one debate on fisheries. Although it was not quite on the matter that he raised, as a result of that and of other pressures on business, I cannot promise an early further debate on fisheries in Government time.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : When my right hon. Friend considers the business of the week we return, will he bear in mind that some of us will probably not be called in the European debate today and were also not called yesterday? I cannot honourably continue as vice- chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland while unable to support the Government today, and it seems that I shall not have an opportunity to let the House know the reasons for and the logic behind my position.

Mr. MacGregor : I am very sorry to hear what my hon. Friend has to say, but I am certain that if he cannot speak he will be in a small minority this evening. I do not know why the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is laughing as it is noticeable that the Labour party has failed to table an amendment to today's Government motion, for the simple reason that it did not want a vote on its own amendment and thus reveal the big differences within the Labour party.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : As the Government intend to find time for the Bills relating to the statements today, will the money resolutions be broad enough in both cases to allow for an increase in interest rates ?

Mr. MacGregor : As I have said, I shall endeavour to ensure that we make the terms of the money resolution known to hon. Members as soon as we can.

Mr. John Browne (Winchester) : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the tremendous problem for public houses being caused by the Government's enactment of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the brewery trade--especially in the country, where there is a danger that pubs will be replaced by continental-style bars ? Does he not think that if we wait until 1993 for that to be reviewed in the House it will be far too late ? Please may we have a debate now or in the near future ?

Mr. MacGregor : I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate on that now or in the near future. As he rightly said, in 1993 there will be a review of the action taken earlier on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, but it will be for each pub to decide what provisions it wants to make in the countryside.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : On the possible statement tomorrow about the Fisheries Council, will the Leader of the House consider asking the relevant Department to provide full written details of what was agreed at the Fisheries Council in advance of the oral statement so that interested Members can examine the fine detail of the agreement ?

Mr. MacGregor : The details will certainly be contained in the statement tomorrow. I will see what can be done

Column 472

before that, but the normal practice is for Ministers to give details in the statements that they make on their return from a Council meeting.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock (Batley and Spen) : My right hon. Friend will be aware that the GATT Uruguay round should conclude this weekend. He will also be well aware of my interest in that matter, and especially in how the decisions will affect the textile industry. When we come back to the House, will he find time for a statement and possibly a debate on that important subject ?

Mr. MacGregor : I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's interest in the GATT Uruguay round, especially in relation to the textile industry. Tomorrow Mr. Dunkel is due to put his resolution to the GATT Uruguay round and there will have to be a final decision on that. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an extremely important matter. When the Uruguay round reaches a conclusion, as we must all sincerely hope will be the case, I shall see what I can do to enable the House to debate it.

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth) : Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the latest crime figures are extremely serious? As the Government gave that matter great prominence and priority in 1979, and as the largest increase in crime in British history has followed, does not that severe problem justify a change in the business of the House so that we can have an urgent debate on it?

Mr. MacGregor : We have debated those matters on many occasions and no doubt will continue to do so. The fact of the matter is that crime in certain areas is rising, as is reported crime in other areas, especially in relation to rape cases. There has been a large rise in crimes involving motor cars. That is why a number of the steps that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has been taking are appropriately directed to motor cars. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have taken many measures on the whole law and order front during our period in office.

Mr. Richard Page (Hertfordshire, South-West) : My right hon. Friend will be aware that many pensioners feel a sense of injustice over the concessionary television licence scheme. Would it be possible to have a debate in the new year to discuss the anomalies, especially the fact that old age pensioners living in identically constructed old age pensioners' dwellings pay two different levels of licence, depending merely on whether there is a warden in attendance?

Mr. MacGregor : I cannot promise any Government time for that in the first week back. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to find other ways of raising the matter, not necessarily in the House.

Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley) : Will the Lord President arrange for an early ministerial statement, possibly in the first week back, on a matter to which I have already drawn his attention--the dumping of toxic waste and the secrecy surrounding it, both in my constituency and generally?

Mr. MacGregor : As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the new waste disposal authorities, which will have the powers to act on these matters. I cannot promise a debate, but I am sure that he will wish to direct his concerns in the first instance to the waste disposal authority.

Column 473

Sir Patrick Duffy (Sheffield, Attercliffe) : Did the Leader of the House notice earlier in the week the announcement by the senior steward of the Jockey Club of a bold, imaginative and widely welcomed proposal for a British horse racing board which will eventually assume responsibility for the industry's future direction? In view of the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee in the spring and the subsequent response of the Home Office, many hon. Members from all parts of the House who were members of the all-party racing and bloodstock industries group, of which I am an officer, are anxious that the Leader of the House should bear those matters in mind and try to fit in a debate early in the new year.

Mr. MacGregor : I have only just seen the report of the speech to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would wish to have time to give it due consideration. I cannot promise an early debate, but I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am afraid that I was deflected and called two Members from one side. [ Hon. Members-- : "Carry on."] I shall call two Members from the other side.

Sir Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington) : I wish to raise a matter that I raised a few weeks ago. Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the world recession and on our commitment to Europe and the Commonwealth? Is he aware that the United States, Australia and France, to name but three countries, have recessions rather worse than our own and that it would be useful to make some comparisons?

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend makes the realistic point that there is a world recession. I have already told my hon. Friend that I hope to be able to arrange a debate on economic matters early in the new year. I hope that he will be able to elaborate his point at that time.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : When the House returns, will my right hon. Friend try to arrange a debate on the lamentable practice of other hon. Members intervening in one's constituency? Is he aware that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) wrote to the chairman of my health authority demanding information about how it was implementing health and safety regulations--

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Lady should ask for a statement when we get back or something like that.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Will my right hon. Friend please try to arrange matters so that the hon. Member for Stretford does not intrude in my constituency again?

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend makes her point forcefully and I am sure that it will be noted. That makes it unnecessary for me to arrange a debate in the first week back.

Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) : It is more than unfortunate that the Leader of the House has failed to ensure that a moratorium on public sector capital spending in Northern Ireland, which deals with almost one third of the financial year's business, has not been dealt with according to the procedures of the House but has been announced in a press statement. In view of the serious

Column 474

repercussions on every aspect of life in Northern Ireland, and bearing in mind that money which is badly needed there is being paid to people who have been questioned at the Castlereagh holding centre--including 58 clients of one firm of solicitors, Madden and Finucane--will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that that aspect of public spending in Northern Ireland is debated in the House at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. MacGregor : The general point about public expenditure in Northern Ireland was raised last week, but I have had to take into account the fact that, as the House knows, there have been heavy pressures on this week's business. The hon. Gentleman raises a specific point which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North) : Does my right hon. Friend recall that last month we had a debate in Opposition time on sport which, regrettably, was dominated by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) who spoke for more than a third of the time allocated? Today the Government announced their new sports review, with excellent initiatives for sport in schools, fund raising and sponsorship and other new policies. May we have a full day's debate in Government time so that these matters can be raised and the empty rhetoric of the Opposition exposed?

Mr. MacGregor : I am glad that my hon. Friend has been able to draw attention to the excellent statement by my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport. I cannot promise a debate early in the new year, but I shall bear in mind the pertinent points that he has made.

Mr. Ron Brown (Edinburgh, Leith) : If "there ain't no sanity clause" at least one thing is clear--Robert Maxwell was a crook living off the stock exchange as well as pension funds, which was utterly disgraceful. He also told lies about Scargill and Heathfield and about many other people. With that in mind, will the Leader of the House ensure an early debate to discuss the power of press barons past and present?

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman knows very well that other opportunities to elaborate his points are available in the House.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross) : If my right hon. Friend gives way to the Opposition request for a debate on housing in the first week of our return, will he ensure that it includes the concept of Wendy houses which are being declared sexist by socialist Kirklees council on the ground that boys are frightened to play for fear of being labelled pansies? That would be fairly precocious at that age. The council has suggested that they should be called pretend corners. Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate to remind the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) that since he became Leader of the Opposition his dwelling has been and always will be a pretend corner?

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. and learned Friend tempts me as I am sure that the whole House would wish to hear more along the lines of what he has said.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : My first Consolidated Fund debate was on north-east Derbyshire's environment. There are now serious problems in the area,

Column 475

such as dioxin in the Bolsover region and effluent in the Grassmoor lagoons associated with Avenue coke works. As there are many other problems in the area, it would be a good idea to have a debate involving at least my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and I, so that we could discuss serious environmental issues in that area and argue for an environmental audit.

Mr. MacGregor : As the hon. Gentleman knows, the dioxin case has been raised several times recently in the House. I think that there was a question about it earlier and a written answer yesterday. The issue has thus already had a considerable airing in the House. We must now await the review of the matter. There are opportunities for the hon. Gentleman to raise the wider issues in the same way as the dioxin issue has been raised.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington) : May we have a statement as early as possible on the Government's response to the intention of some large commercial firms to break the Sunday trading laws in 1992? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, contrary to the impression given by the Prime Minister this afternoon, an appeal against the law does not change the law? Until the law is changed, it must be enforced--and that applies especially to the Government. If the Government condone breaches of the law, which is happening despite the silly excuses given by Front-Bench spokesmen on the subject, law and order in areas more important than Sunday trading will also be affected.

Mr. MacGregor : My right hon. and learned Friend the

Attorney-General has already clarified his position about any prosecutions that he might undertake. As my hon. Friend knows, it is for local authorities to consider the position in their areas.

Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill) : I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 79 which has been signed by more than 60 hon. Members and concerns the disposal of the bodies of aborted babies by macerators into public sewers and drains. [The this House unreservedly condemns the practice of some private clinics of disposing of the bodies of aborted unborn babies by pulping them through a macerator and discharging them into the public sewers and drains ; welcomes the undertaking given by the Minister of State for Health that an inquiry will be held ; reasserts the view of the Polkinghorne Committee that the human remains of the unborn child should be treated with respect ; and calls on the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health to prosecute those responsible for these degrading practices.]

That motion calls for the prosecution of those responsible and it surely requires a reply. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement in the first week of our return?

Next Section

Home Page