House of Commons Hansard Debates for 13 Feb 1992

Column 1111

Business of the House

3.32 pm

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) : May we have the business?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : The business for next week is as follows :

Monday-- 17 February----Until about seven o'clock, motion to take note of memorandum relating to the European Economic area agreement between the EC and the states of the European Free Trade Association. Details will be given in the Official Report.

Timetable motion on the Local Government Bill [Lords]. Motion to take note of EC documents relating to agreements between the European Community and Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Details will be given in the Official Report.

Tuesday-- 18 February----Debate on Industrial Relations on a Government motion.

Motion on the Additional Grant Report (England).

Wednesday-- 19 February----Opposition Day (5th Allotted Day). There will be a debate described as "The Government's Responsibility for the Recession and Unemployment" on an Opposition motion.

Thursday-- 20 February----Remaining stages of the Transport and Works Bill and the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [Lords].

Friday-- 21 February----Private Members' Bills.

Monday-- 24 February----Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order.

Proceedings on the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill. The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 19 February at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows : European Standing Committee A will consider document No. 8918/91, relating to Community strategy to limit carbon dioxide emissions and to impose energy efficiency. European Standing Committee B will consider documents Nos. 10089/90 and 9490/91, relating to free movement of medicinal and products in the European Community.

[Relevant documents :

Monday 17 February

Floor of the House

Relevant European Community Documents

(a) Unnumbered European Economic Area

(b) Unnumbered Association Agreements with Central and Eastern European States

(a) HC 24-vii (1991-92)

(b) HC 24-iv (1991-92)

Column 1112

Wednesday 19 February

European Standing Committee A

Relevant European Community Documents

8918/91 Carbon dioxide Emissions and Energy Efficiency Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee HC 24-v (1991-92), HC 24-ix (1991-92) and HC-xi (1991-92) European Standing Committee B

Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 10089/90 Medicinal Products

(b) 9490/91 Medicinal Products

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee (a) HC 29-xxvi (1990 -91)

(b) HC 24-vii (1991-92) ]

Mr. Grocott : I cannot believe--I do not think that the House can either--that there will be yet another guillotine motion next week. That shows that the Government's business is in a complete shambles. We need to get the facts on the record, so will the Leader of the House confirm that this will be the Government's 36th guillotine motion? I shall repeat that : this will be the Government's 36th guillotine motion. That is more than twice as many as any previous Government have introduced, despite the Government's parliamentary majority of more than 100. We know that they cannot run the country, but one would have thought that they could run their own business. It is time that the Leader of the House told us what the guillotine motions are all about. We all know that they are the Government's shambolic attempts to clear the decks for a general election on 9 April--provided that the Prime Minister does not lose his nerve, as he has done three times previously. We want an election on 9 April, and we should be happy to talk to the Leader of the House about facilitating business, which, of course, needs proper scrutiny. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not tell us what everyone knows--that there will be a quick-fix Budget on 10 March and a general election on 9 April?

It is high time that we had an explanation of another aspect of next week's business. In the light of today's appalling unemployment figures, to which the Prime Minister was quite incapable of giving a sensible response, will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government have not initiated a single debate on unemployment in their own time during this Parliament? I do not want to hear any nonsense about debates on the Budget and on the Queen's Speech. I am talking about a specific debate on the crisis that is causing anguish in millions of families. The Government do not think that crisis important enough to initiate their own debate on it--we are always the ones who have to do that. The Prime Minister cannot give an answer, but it is time that the Government did. They should give us a date for a debate on unemployment, and it should be next week.

Mr. MacGregor : On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the Government have had many debates on economic policy, which have much to do with unemployment. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that the debate next Tuesday on industrial

Column 1113

relations is a debate on unemployment, and on the huge improvements that there have been on the employment scene--the number of days lost is at a record low--he does not understand employment issues. That is why the Opposition have advanced policies which would undoubtedly greatly exacerbate unemployment.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the timetable motion. There is now clear evidence of deliberate Opposition delays affecting the Local Government Bill. On Tuesday night, and overnight into Wednesday morning, there were considerable delays. More than 32 hours have been spent considering the Bill, many more hours will be spent on it. The Bill is important. Many local authorities throughout the country are anxious for the Local Government Commission to be established so that it can get on with its job. When going round the country, I have had such requests from many areas. We are engaged on the sensible management of Government business, and we are ensuring that priority Bills have every opportunity to be passed in this Session.

I note that hon. Members on both sides of the House now call for timetables on all Government Bills-- [Interruption.] Not everyone in the House agrees, but there has been a wide range of requests for such action. We must await the conclusion of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), but I hope that in future we shall be able to timetable more Bills from the outset so that we do not have long delays considering their early provisions while the later parts are not properly considered.

Mr. Speaker : May I make the plea that I made last week and, I think, even the week before? The object of business questions is to ask about business next week. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to confine their questions to that and not to make electioneering points. There will be other opportunities for that.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking) : Has my right hon. Friend seen the front pages of this morning's Daily Express or this afternoon's Evening Standard ? Will he confirm that there is nothing in next week's business which is of such importance that it will prevent a statement being made to the House, either by Ministers or by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, about the circumstances in which papers appear to have been stolen from the Department of Health and passed to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), and about the hon. Gentleman's involvement in those matters?

Mr. MacGregor : I cannot make an announcement now about statements next week. I agree that it is a serious matter and deserves a clear announcement, whether it is in this House or elsewhere, about the Opposition's position. There is widespread concern about leaked or purloined documents. I believe that the official authorities have now detected the source of one leak. I hope that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who has been publishing the documents, will now recognise that he is responsible for causing difficulties for the individual who has leaked them. It is the wrong thing to do and is wholly misleading about the position in the national health service. It is a cloak for the Opposition's complete absence of policy on the health service.

Column 1114

Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston) : Will the Leader of the House accept that the Prime Minister's response and his response today will be cold comfort to unemployed people? Cannot unemployed people justifiably expect that next week, in view of the figures, the Government will give time for a debate on unemployment?

Mr. MacGregor : I have already said that there will be a debate on industrial relations, in which all employment matters can be raised. I reiterate that, of course, we regret the increase in unemployment and we very much regret the situation that people face as a result of unemployment. The hon. Gentleman knows, as so many industries tell us, that the problem is that there is worldwide recession and that the same trends can be seen in many other parts of the country. It is crucial that we continue to pursue policies to ensure, as will happen, that as the recession clears Britain has one of the most competitive economies to take advantage of that.

Mr. John Biffen (Shropshire, North) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the teachers' pay settlement that was announced this week has serious implications for local authority finance, both nationally and in Shropshire? Is there a possibility of the matter being debated under any of the items of business which he has announced for next week?

Mr. MacGregor : Yes, I am glad to confirm to my right hon. Friend that, as he knows, the Government are making available a further £60 million to deal with the review body's award. The matter will be debated on the motion entitled "Additional Grant Report (England)" next week. The additional grant is required entirely for that purpose.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West) : May we please have an early debate on road safety, especially as it affects children, both as pedestrians and in cars? Three days ago, 10-year-old Yvette Barr was killed on one of the awful roads in my constituency that hack through so many of the great estates in our constituencies. Surely the House should consider how children can be kept safe. More and more children and young people are being maimed or killed because they sit in the centre of the rear of cars, which have dangerous lap seat belts instead of crossed three-point seat belts. Surely we should not have to wait for the EC to act or to initiate debate on the matter. The House should consider that danger without delay.

Mr. MacGregor : I very much regret the death of the constituent to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, as one regrets any such road accidents. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman will know that we have pursued many road safety measures, including some in built-up areas such as the one that he described. We are constantly pursuing road safety education and other matters under the national curriculum and in other ways.

I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that central lap belts are an improvement on travelling unrestrained. A three-point belt provides better safety, but it is technically difficult to fit them to the centre rear seats of many cars.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West) : Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the debate on the timetable motion for the Local Government Bill gives us plenty of time to debate why the motion has become necessary and,

Column 1115

in particular, to examine the Hansard report of the Committee? The Committee has been treated to enormously long speeches, including one that lasted an hour and a quarter by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). The speeches were completely empty and showed that the Labour party has no strategy on local government other than wasting hon. Members' time and throwing buckets of money at its problems. Labour Members will not tell us where that money will come from. Their conduct is a disgrace and people should understand that.

Mr. MacGregor : I assure my hon. Friend that there will be plenty of opportunity in the timetable motion debate to raise those matters. It is becoming clear from the evidence that has been given to the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) that restrictions on the length of speeches are necessary and that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked for them. They are necessary not just in the period in which we now have them. Many points may be made effectively in a short time. The timetabling of Bills has become necessary to avoid the situation to which my hon. Friend refers and to ensure more effective consideration of Bills.

It is notable that the Local Government Bill, which we shall debate on Monday, contains several measures relating to a citizens charter to improve local services and to ensure better value for money. That is one of the reasons why we are anxious to get the Bill on the statute book.

Mr. Speaker : I call Mr. Hugh McCartney.

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman's father is better.

Mr. McCartney : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I, for the next 20 minutes or so, advise you exactly about what went on in the Committee? The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is telling porky-pies, as is his wont on such matters. There have been no delaying tactics from the Opposition. Since the Bill entered Committee, there has been only one full day of debate because the Government, on numerous occasions, have curtailed debate. On one occasion, they ended a whole session without debate so that the rate support grant settlement could be debated on the Floor of the House. The Government kept us up until 5 am the other morning-- [Hon. Members :-- "Ah."] I do not object to that because one of the problems is that the Committee should be able to respond to the Bill. The Government are trying to curtail debate on major issues affecting local government services. They are afraid of proper debate on and scrutiny of the Bill so that we can see what is happening to local services as a result of privatisation.

Mr. MacGregor : I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. The Bill aims to ensure the efficient delivery of local services--it is one of many measures for that purpose. I understand that many Committee members now feel that deliberate and co-ordinated attempts have been made to halt progress. Hon. Members' speeches have contained much repetition and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibilities for lcoal government had to move the closure motion twice to ensure that proper consideration could be given to later clauses.

Column 1116

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : Has the Leader of the House taken note of the remarks made in the House yesterday about the conduct of business relating to the European Community? He and others seem to be trying to keep those matters of great importance from being debated properly in this assembly. Will he assure us that he will give time shortly so that the House can--at the proper time and before decisions are made in Europe--express its mind about the disgraceful suggestion of Mr. Delors that this country will have to pay for other countries that are, in parts, even better off than us? Parts of the Republic of Ireland, in particular, are now demanding £6 million a day, while Northern Ireland has been rejected for cohesion fund payments.

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman will know that yesterday's vote was in accordance with all the normal procedures of the House ; the matter had been debated the week before, which is the normal way to proceed. As the House approved the resolution the week before that, we took an automatic and normal vote on the issue yesterday. There is nothing strange about that.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made the Government's position on the Delors programme clear, both inside and outside the House. There is no doubt about where the Government stand on that.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : I raise a matter of some urgency for next week's business. If the general election is called for 9 April, the last date when people can register on the electoral roll will be next Thursday. The new registers will become publicly available from next Sunday. Existing electoral registers show that 1.4 million people are missing from them in England, Scotland and Wales.

On Monday, will the Government publish the figures for the registers, constituency by constituency, so that we are aware of the current position? May we have a statement, or a debate in the House, on the issue, as we are approaching the election with crooked electoral registers?

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman knows that his remarks about crooked registers are completely untrue and unfair. He has raised the matter before and he knows that electoral registration has been declining since before the introduction of the community charge. There is no specific evidence to suggest that its introduction has had an adverse effect on registration. Indeed, the Government have gone to great lengths to make it clear that there is no connection between the two. Perhaps Labour Members who encouraged people not to pay the community charge led the public to think that there is a connection, but there is not.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Gedling) : As the Prime Minister confirmed this week that about 180,000 teachers have learnt that they will earn more than £20,280 per annum, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House reconsider next week's business to include a full-day debate on taxation so that Conservative Members can show their support for teachers being paid more, as the review body report, which was published this week, recommends? We would also be able to show that the Labour party's proposal would cut teachers' take-home pay by abolishing the upper limit on national insurance contributions.

Column 1117

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is entirely right. I hope that it is not necessary to have a full-day debate to make that point time and time again. It is instructive and interesting to note that, even before the review body on teachers' pay made its recommendations and the Government accepted them, many teachers suffered considerable overall tax increases as a result of the Labour party's proposals for national insurance contributions. Those teachers are suffering even more now. It is significant that 180,000 teachers will come into that category, but I cannot promise a debate on taxation. My hon. Friend knows that there will be an opportunity for that before long.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : When will we have a debate on Lloyd's? How much longer can we tolerate the scandals that emanate from Lloyd's month after month, with the result that we now know that some of its insiders have been lining their pockets to the tune of about £800,000? In that posh betting shop, some people are placing bets on less risky ventures, while giving the more excessive risks to those outside. If it were a working-class organisation, it would have secret ballots up to its earholes, but because it is an elitist organisation, close to the heart of the City and to the Tory party, it is allowed to regulate itself. It is high time that the Augean stables were cleaned out and the matter was dealt with properly by the law.

Mr. MacGregor : As the hon. Gentleman knows, the issue of Lloyd's has been debated by the House in the not too distant past. It is a self- regulatory body under statute approved by the House. Any allegations of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has in mind--I have seen his early-day motion- -are the responsibility of the Lloyd's authorities in the first instance. Any evidence of those allegations should be given to the Lloyd's authorities. My hon. Friend the Minister for Corporate Affairs has spoken to the chairman of Lloyd's, who agrees that the regulator must move as firmly and as swiftly as possible.

Sir John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge) : Will my right hon. Friend make time next week for a most important debate on a most important subject which is hardly ever debated here--immigration--given the recently published fact that in 1990 more than 250,000 people entered this country for settlement, the highest number since 1964? If this goes on, England will no longer be England.

Mr. MacGregor : I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate next week, although I recognise that this is a most important issue, not least because immigration issues in relation to economic migrants have been recently discussed in the House in debates on the Asylum Bill. I am keen to get on with the business of the House to ensure that if anything comes back to the House on this Bill we can deal with it while the House is in session. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will agree that, by introducing that Bill, we are showing our concern about one particular aspect of immigration.

Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North) : Before next week, will the Leader of the House have a word with the Secretary of State for Employment and ask him to make a statement on what the Government are going to do about policies that have resulted in the 22nd successive monthly rise in unemployment? Will he also ask him to

Column 1118

comment on the junior Minister who said that those being made redundant by British Aerospace were being liberated? Or, on reflection, is it all due to the fact that the Government have been conducting a national liberation campaign to make people unemployed, with all the misery that unemployment brings?

Mr. MacGregor : My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have already referred to the hon. Gentleman's point. There will be plenty of opportunities to discuss employment and unemployment next week, and to discuss the policies that are most likely in the competitive world of the 1990s to ensure as many jobs as possible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has noticed reports that Germany has 3 million unemployed people and that French unemployment is at record levels. I believe that the policies that we are pursuing will ensure that we are in a competitive state as the world recession clears.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West) : Given the widespread interest in the demand by Mr. Delors for more spending in Europe, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate to give the Government an opportunity to point out that this is an inevitable consequence of the move towards a single currency, and that as long as weak economies deny themselves the right to vary their exchange rates they are bound to ask for compensation in increased payments from what they call a regional fund, a cohesion fund or a convergence fund? By any other name, there will still have to be a massive transfer of wealth from the rich countries to the poor.

Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that there will undoubtedly be opportunities before too long to discuss matters such as the Delors budget and the cohesion fund, but I am afraid that they will not arise next week.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week by the Secretary of State for Energy on electricity prices? Is he aware that one of the largest companies in Bradford is warning that further redundancies will have to be made if it is forced to pay 30 per cent. more for its contract electricity? Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Secretary of State to intervene immediately to stop the privatised electricity industry imposing excessive and exorbitant electricity prices? Will he also arrange for the matter to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission so that this rip-off of manufacturing industry can be halted?

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman will know that there are already regulatory arrangements to deal with those issues and that, overall, there has been a reduction in real terms in electricity prices. He will also know that millions of consumers and small, medium-sized and other businesses have benefited greatly from that, and that there is some adjustment in the tariff structure for larger companies.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : Will the Leader of the House explain, when he is so obviously unable to allow time for a debate on important and urgent European matters, why on earth we are to have a three- hour debate on Monday on the European economic area when the agreement has already been vetoed by the European Court?

Column 1119

Mr. MacGregor : Because on that issue I think that matters are moving on, and because I have been asked by the Scrutiny Committee and the House to have the debate on the Floor of the House rather than in the European Standing Committee.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a written answer on Thursday by a Northern Ireland Office Minister? The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) asked about physiotherapy services and the Minister directed him to refer the question to the chairman of the health and social services board. That was an inadequate and inappropriate response because the board is not an independent body--it is not even a quango--but is entirely a creature of the Minister. For the Minister to refuse to answer that question is wholly inadequate. Would it be possible to arrange a debate on the matter?

Mr. MacGregor : I cannot comment on the question because I have not seen it. I shall certainly look at it. I suspect--and I repeat that I have not seen the question and hope that I am right--that it may be as a result of the changes that we have been making to deal with written questions in relation to next steps agencies. If that is not so, I shall certainly have a look at the matter.

Mr. Richard Alexander (Newark) : Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the European Parliament has decided to ban tobacco advertising? Is he aware that 3,000 people are employed in the tobacco industry in Nottinghamshire, and that firms trading at the margins, such as corner shops and publishers of respectable magazines, will be at great risk if the ban is put into effect? May we have a debate on the matter, and one that is somewhat more than a 90-minute debate in the middle of the night at the instigation of European countries, many of which receive taxpayers' money to promote their tobacco interests and ban the advertising of tobacco products in their own countries? Should not we attend to that issue?

Mr. MacGregor : As I think my hon. Friend knows, there has been a debate on this in European Standing Committee B. The Government remain to be convinced that a total ban on tobacco advertising is necessary for the operation of the internal market. That is one of the key issues for the draft European Community directive. The Government's policy on tobacco advertising is clear. My hon. Friend drew attention to some of the implications of an advertising ban. I agree that the proposed action by the Community is totally illogical at a time when hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is used to subsidise the tobacco industry in other parts of the Community. When I was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I fought against that.

Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, Central and Royton) : What about the Leader of the House initiating a system of secondary statements, perhaps next week, so that hon. Members can recall Ministers to the Dispatch Box to correct statements that they made earlier, such as when the Prime Minister told us that he had solved the problem of the repossession of houses? A month later, we find that nothing has been done or achieved. Houses are still being repossessed, and the poor people of this country believe that they have been completely misled. Should not the Prime Minister return to the Dispatch Box and explain why it was necessary to mislead people in the first place?

Column 1120

Mr. MacGregor : My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said today that we took action before Christmas, which has been debated in the House. For the hon. Gentleman to say that nothing has been done is totally misleading. The other place is passing the Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill, which has been considered in this place. We have passed stamp duty legislation. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong to say that nothing has been done. He must also know that two building societies--I think that it may now be three--have announced specific plans. Before Christmas, they agreed on the arrangements and they have now worked them through and are implementing them. The hon. Gentleman will also know that a number of other building societies are already following the spirit of that agreement.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on local government in London ? Is he aware that those councils with the worst record in rent arrears, those with the worst school results and those with the largest stock of unlet council houses are all Labour ?

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is right, and that is a point that he could make on the Local Government Bill, because some of the clauses will empower the Audit Commission to make comparisons of performance and to ensure that the points that my hon. Friend makes are fully drawn to the attention of the local public.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : Would it not be a useful enhancement of the position of Back Benchers if an early-day motion that had attracted 175 Back-Bench signatures from both sides of the House became a subject for debate in Government time on the Floor of the House ? May I draw attention to early-day motion 503 on the Japanese slaughter of minke whales, which, by coincidence, has attracted 175 signatures from both sides of the House ?

[That this House condemns the fact that Japanese whalers are slaughtering minke whales for spurious research purposes in the Antarctic Ocean ; is outraged that Japan is still undermining the world-wide, indefinite ban on commercial whaling imposed by the International Whaling Commission in 1986 ; is appalled that Japan has slaughtered nearly 7,000 whales and over 100,000 dolphins and porpoises during the ban despite the repeated criticisms and recommendations of the International Whaling Commission and the entreaties of the international community ; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make the strongest possible protest to the Japanese Government demanding their full and immediate compliance with the indefinite commercial whaling moratorium ; further demands an end to the slaughter of dolphins and porpoises in Japanese coastal waters and asks Her Majesty's Government to press for the permanent extension of the ban at this year's International Whaling Commission meeting in Glasgow.]

It is important that the House should have an opportunity to express its near-unanimous revulsion at the continuing slaughter of minke whales by the Japanese in the Antarctic and the slaughter of dolphins and porpoises. Prior to the International Whaling Commission meeting in Glasgow later this year, the House should have an opportunity to discuss that and next week would be a good time to start.

Column 1121

Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Japanese Government are well aware of the concerns of the British Government, the House and the British people about Japanese whale and dolphin hunting practices. Through the International Whaling Commission, we have consistently opposed unjustified whaling for scientific purposes, and we shall continue to do so. There is no doubt about the stand that the British Government have consistently taken. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been strong in his approach to the matter.

Early-day motions are a means to enable the House to express its view. I have certainly noticed the large number of signatures to that early-day motion. I hope that that in itself will have its effect. The hon. Gentleman is being a little ingenious to suggest that early-day motions which attract a large number of signatures should then take up Government time. I can see how that practice could quickly be abused.

Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West) : Would it be sensible to have a debate, if not next week certainly before this Parliament ends, on the civil service? In recent years, there have been an increasing number of cases of dishonesty, culminating in the current scandal at the Department of Health. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this goes beyond mere party politics? No matter which party is in power, the proper government of this country depends on Ministers being able to rely on the honesty of their officials.

Mr. MacGregor : And certainly, too, being able to rely on the knowledge that there will not be deliberate leaks and things of that sort, which I think that my hon. Friend has in mind. I believe that it is widely condemned that documents are leaked and that clear use is then made of them when at the same time there are complaints about leaks from other sources. I agree with my hon. Friend but, as far as I understand it, the appropriate action has been taken by the appropriate authorities in that case.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford) : Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House next week to make a statement arising out of the information given by top doctors yesterday to the Select Committee on Health? They are being forced into the position--arising out of implementating Government policy on waiting lists--of having to carry out minor operations and delay major operations, which could end up costing lives. Surely all hon. Members in the House want the truth. We would like the Secretary of State for Health to come here and clear up this matter.

Mr. MacGregor : We have been having a great number of debates about the health service, in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been making the position clear. As far as Select Committee reports are concerned, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the practice is for the Select Committee first to make its report, and the Government then make their response.

Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke) : In the light of the horrific level of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland, a bomb being placed in Whitehall this week and IRA demonstrations on the streets of London, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the business that he has announced for Monday 24 February will allow a

Next Section

Home Page