| Home Page |
Column 463
Business of the House
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : The business of the House for next week will be as follows :
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 has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
Tuesday 25 February--Remaining stages of the Local Government Bill [Lords]
Motion on the Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations
Wednesday 26 February--Debate on inflation on a Government motion Motion on the Fire Service College Trading Fund Order.
Thursday 27 February--Debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday 28 February--Private Members' motions
Monday 2 March--Until seven o'clock motion to take note of EC documents relating to asylum and immigration ; details will be given in the Official Report.
Debate on the report from the Select Committee on Sittings of the House on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
[Monday 2 March Floor of the House Relevant European Community Documents
Dr. Cunningham : Has the Leader of the House had time to consider the High Court's decision that computer evidence on the non-payment of poll tax is inadmissible in magistrates courts? Is he aware that, as a consequence, local authorities will be denied revenue of about £3 million each week until the Government's belated action to correct this appalling blunder in their legislation comes into effect? Will the Government compensate local authorities and local poll tax payers for their inefficiency in the poll tax legislation, which means that the biggest single cause of non-payment and non-collection of the poll tax is the action of Her Majesty's Government and their appalling and inadequate legislation? May we have a statement on this important issue next week from the Secretary of State for the Environment?
Why does the Leader of the House persist in giving the Government Supply days, as he is planning to do again next week, when he cannot find time for the proper consideration of legislation and introduces guillotines almost weekly? He cannot find time to give the Opposition
Column 464
Supply days, but he can find time-- [Interruption.] We are talking about next week's business--but he can find time to allocate to the Government. We are very happy to debate the Government's abysmal economic performance, of course, but should not he think harder about finding time for more Opposition Supply days before the end of this Parliament?Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance--if not today, certainly in his business statement next week--that, following the Budget on 10 March, we shall have the normal allocation of time to debate the Budget proposals? If there is to be a general election on 9 April, the proclamation will have to be announced on Monday 16 March, so how will the Government allocate proper time for debate on the Budget in that short period? Will he assure us that the Budget debate will not be truncated and that we shall have the normal period to debate the Government's proposals?
Mr. MacGregor : As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, he will know that it was not the Government who caused, in the case of some local authorities, considerable funds not to be paid as a result of non-payment of the community charge ; it was the action of those who did not pay their community charge, as most responsible citizens did. It was certainly aided and abetted by the members of the Opposition and the many Labour councillors who actively encouraged them not to pay, so the hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to get away with that. We must be clear where the fault lies.
On the question of computer evidence in magistrates court cases, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are taking action as quickly as possible by means of an amendment to the Local Government Finance Bill in another place. I hope that we shall have his support for that amendment when the Bill returns to this House. As so many of his hon. Friends have encouraged non-payment, he can now assist us by actively supporting that amendment.
On the hon. Gentleman's second question about a debate next week on inflation, he knows that I have been pressed on many occasions to find Government time to debate the economy. I am happy to agree to that as Second Reading debates are progressing. Incidentally, I have been very fair to the Opposition with regard to Supply days. After yesterday's Supply day, there is a heavy demand from my colleagues for more such days. The Opposition were routed yesterday and their Front-Bench spokesmen were wiped off the floor.
On the question of a normal allocation of time for the Budget debate, the hon. Gentleman will know that it is not a matter for next week's business.
Several Hon. Members rose--
Mr. Speaker : Order. May I make the plea which I made last week, the week before and the week before that : will hon. Members confine business questions today to the business for next week? There will be opportunities during next week's debates to make party political points.
Mr. Tim Smith (Beaconsfield) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 are now quite inadequate to deal with the growing problem of travellers in many constituencies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) mentioned earlier? May we have an
Column 465
urgent debate on this subject next week to discuss ways in which these two pieces of legislation may be strengthened and whether we should introduce a new criminal offence of aggravated trespass?Mr. MacGregor : I am aware of the concern felt in many constituencies about travellers. I understand that there was a question about it earlier this afternoon. I shall certainly discuss it further with my right hon. Friend, but I will not be able to find time for a debate in Government time next week.
Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber) : Given the wild enthusiasm for Opposition Supply days that the Leader of the House tell us now exists among Conservative Members, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he recalls that, by this time last year, and in 1990, there had been a Liberal Democrat Supply day? I know that approaches have been made through the usual channels. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that he will follow precedent and arrange for a Supply day the week after next?
Mr. MacGregor : I cannot give that precise assurance, but I can say that minority parties are normally allowed about one sixth of the Supply days, and that we have had five Labour party Supply days. I am working pretty well to the normal timetable. I am aware that there has been discussion about the matter, and I shall certainly keep it in mind.
Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton) : My right hon. Friend will know of my concern about standards of reporting in broadcasting in this country, and I know that he shares that concern. I wonder whether he read the centre pages of the Evening Standard last night, which were about an extraordinary incident that seems to have taken place on the BBC television "Nine O'clock News". Someone who was interviewed was portrayed--
Mr. Speaker : Order. This is just the point that I was seeking to make. Is this question about a debate next week?
Mr. Speaker : It does not sound like it.
Mr. Tracey : Somebody who was interviewed on the news was portrayed as being deprived but was subsequently revealed to be far from that, and was possibly a "plant". May we have an urgent debate on bias in broadcasting in the BBC news?
Mr. MacGregor : I am aware of the newspaper report, and, although I did not see the news programme, it seemed to me that it not only gave a distorted impression of the whole student situation but failed to make the point that we have one of the most generous student support systems of all equivalent countries. Furthermore, a single example was given--a sample of one--and it turned out to be highly distorted. I agree with my hon. Friend that the programme was an example of highly biased reporting which should not have happened. I cannot promise a debate on the subject next week, but I hope that the authorities in the BBC will consider the case carefully. I am aware of the concern among my hon. Friends.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Leaving aside the continued Tory vendetta against the BBC, when business
Column 466
is due to be announced and the Secretary of State for the Environment is due to speak, will the Leader of the House make it clear that the right hon. Gentleman's speech will be a renewal of his leadership campaign to decide who will be Leader of the Opposition after 9 April?Mr. MacGregor : If the hon. Gentleman is referring to yesterday's debate, I notice that there is a renewed campaign about who should be shadow Chancellor.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent) : Now that we have been given the opportunity to see that the national health service reform proposals are working extremely well, and that the only suggestion from the Opposition is that the whole lot should be reversed and the monolithic NHS, which worked so patchily in the past, should be restored, may we have a debate in which the poverty of the Opposition proposals could be exposed and the very good story that we have to tell about the NHS reforms could be fully told?
Mr. MacGregor : I agree with my hon. Friend that a debate would be desirable. Labour's so-called health policy amounts to a wrecker's charter, wrecking so many of the benefits that the NHS reforms are already bringing, and makes it clear that they would bring back trade union domination, putting union demands before patients' needs. I agree with my hon. Friend that we may wish to debate the issue, but I do not think that I could accommodate a debate next week.
Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to come back to the Chamber this afternoon and make a statement on this morning's High Court ruling in favour of my constituents David and Eleanor Bullard, and against the Government's persistent illegal use of uncorroborated computer printouts in poll tax cases in magistrates courts? The ruling puts a question mark over 11 million liability orders in England and Wales-- [Interruption.] Tory Members may shout, as if we were talking about a minority of people, but this matter affects more than one in four of all adults in this country.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to conduct from today an urgent review of each of the 170 people, including 13 pensioners, 35 people who are unemployed and four whose only income was invalidity benefit, who have been put in prison on the basis of uncorroborated computer evidence, so that their cases may be considered and compensation can be paid?
Mr. MacGregor : I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that the vast majority of people are incensed by the fact that some people have not paid their community charge when they are perfectly able to do so. Within the community charge system, there are benefits and rebates for those on lower incomes and for those most in need. The fault lies with those who do not comply with the law as everyone else does. On the point about magistrates courts, I have already made plain what the Government are doing.
Mr. Malcolm Thornton (Crosby) : My right hon. Friend will be aware that it is many, many months since the tragic events at Hillsborough. He will equally be aware that, for many of the relatives of those who lost their lives--11 of my constituents died at Hillsborough--the anguish goes on, because they are still not satisfied that the truth has come out of the inquiry. For them, that is the only way in
Column 467
which they can put their loved ones finally to rest. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Attorney-General to address the issue as a matter of urgency? Every day it goes on brings renewed anguish to those tragic families.Mr. MacGregor : I understand, of course, the concern that my hon. Friend expresses on behalf of the families. We all recall that tragic day. Without commenting on the details, because I do not know them, I will raise the case with my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford) : Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday, Mr. Malcolm Edwards, the commercial director of British Coal, informed the Select Committee on Energy that, if the present energy policies of National Power, PowerGen and the Government continued, the outlook would be more pessimistic than suggested in the Rothschild report which suggested that the number of pits would go down to about 14? Mr. Edwards suggested that the figure would be 12.
Is the Leader of the House also aware that, when the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill was in Committee, Associated British Ports, through its mouthpiece, Mr. Frank Layfield QC, misled the Committee? In those circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman consider arranging an urgent debate next week on the future of the mining industry?
Mr. MacGregor : We have already had a number of debates affecting the mining industry, so I cannot promise a debate next week. I am aware of the view that one individual put to the Select Committee yesterday. The Government's aim is to create the largest economic United Kingdom coal industry that the market can support in the longer term. We do not accept that the industry will be reduced to 12 pits. The future size will depend on the performance of the industry itself. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is encouraging that Boyds, the United States mining engineers, has found great scope for further productivity improvements, so British Coal should be well placed to compete in price with imported coal and to secure the lion's share of the electricity market by offering competitively priced coal.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement either today or on Monday on the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) Bill, and on the Government's response to the debate in Committee and on Second Reading on the Transport and Works Bill? The Minister for Shipping said in Committee that that was not the place to talk about the level of alcohol that a public service driver of a train or of a national bus could take. Given the level of debate on Second Reading on 2 December and the Minister's comments in column 45 of Hansard, and given the comments made in Committee, it would be appropriate to find some way of ascertaining the Government's attitude on that important issue. At present, the Government say, in effect, that it is all right for a train driver to have five glasses of wine before driving a train. I raise the matter especially because it is almost 20 years since the Eltham Well Hall crash, when six people died and 126 were injured. It was one of the rare events in which a public service driver was over the limit.
Column 468
Mr. MacGregor : I know that the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) Bill has been recommended by the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration on Monday evening. I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friend.
Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East) : Is the Leader of the House aware of the great interest that has been created in Northern Ireland about the on-going constitutional debate--that is, whether there should be devolution to Scotland and Wales? Will the right hon. Gentleman give some advice on what procedures my hon. Friends and I should follow and what facilities he will make available to us and to hon. Members from elsewhere in the United Kingdom to attend debates of the Grand Committees in Scotland and Wales whenever those Committees discuss the constitutional position of Scotland and Wales?
Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman knows the position in relation to the Scottish Grand Committee, but I very much agree with what is behind his question : there is considerable interest throughout the United Kingdom in those constitutional matters, and rightly so because the implications go much wider than Scotland. I cannot say how that matter might be taken forward at the moment. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are four half -day debates being given to the Scottish Grand Committee. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make clear those wider implications in the debate.
Sir Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead) : Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the accommodation that is given to servants of the House who must stay overnight in this Palace, and will he examine the facilities that are offered to them? Will he also consider a change so that we ourselves, rather than the Department of the Environment, have responsibility?
Mr. MacGregor : As my hon. Friend suggests, under the Ibbs proposals, we will have responsibility for that matter from 1 April. I do not think that a debate is necessary. My hon. Friend can raise the matter through the appropriate committees that we are now setting up.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : May we have an assurance that we will be given the opportunity of having four full days to consider the Budget statement, in particular because one of those days must be given to the debate on industry? I shall want to expose Volvo Bus of Sweden's secret agenda for the United Kingdom, which is to close down the British bus industry and switch its production to plants principally in Sweden.
Mr. MacGregor : On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I have frequently said to him that he must find his own way of raising that matter, and I notice that he has not yet done so. On his first point, he will know that I have not announced the Budget for next week. I must obey your strictures, Mr. Speaker, and not deal with that matter now.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on national health service trusts? It has just been announced by the Opposition that they would abolish such trusts. A debate would give us an opportunity, among many other things, to mention the independent survey of 900 patients in eight national health service trust hospitals who had been in those hospitals
Column 469
before and after they became trusts. Those patients were asked, "Is the hospital better, the same, or worse?" Forty- eight per cent. said that the hospitals were better as trusts, and about 42 per cent. said that they were much the same. Nearly 90 per cent. said that trust hospitals are either satisfactory or very satisfactory.Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend makes his point very well, and I entirely agree with him. Indeed, it is one of the features that I hope that we will be able to debate, certainly in the coming weeks and months, the Opposition's health policy. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the fact that all the efforts and enthusiasm of the many thousands of people making a success of NHS trust status and GP fund holding would come to naught under Labour. The patients who have clearly said that they would benefit would also find that those benefits did not continue.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South) : I know not whether the Leader of the House heard the Radio 4 programme this morning concerning Mr. Payne, who was convicted of murder 20 or more years ago and who has served increasingly lengthy periods in prison although he has always denied the offence. On that programme, it was said that instances of interference by political appointees, either the Secretary of State for the Home Department or the Minister of State, in the decisions of the Parole Board have risen from 3 per cent. to 30 per cent. over the past five to 10 years. Bearing in mind the liberty of the citizen, will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on whether decisions on life sentences should be made by Parole Board officials or whether they should be made by the Secretary of State of the day or his officials? Often the liberty of the individual is denied for no reason at all.
Mr. MacGregor : I did not hear the broadcast this morning, so I cannot comment on it. There is no time for a debate in Government time on the matter next week.
Sir Peter Emery (Honiton) : Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House consider discussions through the usual channels on whether, instead of a debate on the Adjournment, the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House could be on a positive motion? That would perhaps allow us to agree to the report generally so that, after the election, a Government could proceed in the knowledge that the House had agreed, not on every aspect but in principle, to reform the sitting hours of the House. Many people in the House wish to see such reform.
Mr. MacGregor : I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point ; it enables me to make clear the position on the debate that I have announced for a week on Monday. The report of the Select Committee will be published tomorrow. I am sure that the whole House will wish to see it and to join me in expressing warm thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and the members of his Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), for the extremely hard and swift work that they have done to enable the report to come before the House. My hon. Friend is entirely right in intimating that there is great interest in the report. I am very much aware of that from the many representations that I have received. That is why I thought it right to give the House an early opportunity to express its views on the report and its recommendations and why I acted particularly swiftly. I
Column 470
hope that the House will have enough time to study the report. It is not particularly long so it should be possible for the House to do so. The form chosen for the debate--a motion of the Adjournment--is the best way to ensure an open and full debate. Thereafter we can consider how the House should move forward to take decisions on the report's recommendations.Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mo n) : The Leader of the House will be aware that there is considerable interest in Wales, too, in the constitutional issue. We understand that the Secretary of State for Wales is agreeable to the Welsh Grand Committee meeting in Wales, possibly on 9 March, to discuss that very issue. Will the Leader of the House inform us whether, in the course of next week, as required under Standing Order No. 98, he will table a motion to amend the Standing Order to enable the Committee to meet on Monday 9 March? If it does not happen next week, will he give an assurance that it will happen before the appropriate date?
Mr. MacGregor : I am well aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is keen to have a debate and has suggested that it should be held in Wales. In principle, I see no objection to that ; indeed, I see advantages in it. The difficulty is that it involves a change in Standing Orders. I was not aware of the deadline to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We shall have to consider that matter.
Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that anyone who had been holding his breath for the appearance of the Government's White Paper on railway privatisation would long ago have expired? May I assume that the reason for the delay is that sanity is beginning to prevail and that the Government intend to seek to define the problems of the railways before proposing a specific solution? That being so, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to announce that the Government have no intention of producing a White Paper containing such solutions before the election? If he did so, he would save demands on valuable time next week.
Mr. MacGregor : I can make no such statement. All I can say is that the Government are considering the whole matter thoroughly. They are right to do so, because the issue raises major matters. Therefore, it is right for the Government to spend a good deal of time on it. I cannot give the precise timing. The matter does not need to take up a great deal of time next week.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South) : Will the Leader of the House reconsider initiating a debate next week on the important issue of the Government's reforms of the national health service, with special reference to the 13.8 per cent. reduction in fees for NHS treatment paid to dentists? In Bristol, 180 dentists--virtually all the NHS dentists in Bristol and Avon--met last Tuesday and took the decision that, if the Government force the 13.8 per cent. reduction in their fees for treating NHS patients, they will restrict new health service patients from 1 March and some practices will terminate the treatment of new NHS patients. Obviously, that is of great concern throughout the country and not merely in Bristol, where the Secretary of State for Health is a Member of Parliament, because dental hygiene is vital.
Mr. MacGregor : The Government continue to negotiate with dentists' representatives. A further meeting
Column 471
took place this afternoon. As part of those discussions, my right hon. and hon. Friends agreed to re-examine, in association with the dentists' representatives, detailed elements of fee levels. At the next formal meeting in May, the results of that work will be considered and fee scales set accordingly. Meanwhile, the proposed reduction in fees will not be implemented, so a debate next week is not necessary.Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test) : Can my right hon. Friend make room next week for a debate on European Commission legislation which, it is rumoured, will allow domestic animals to be imported and exported across the channel without any check for rabies? That concerns my constituents in Southampton, where there is a large port and several marinas. The Government should do anything they can to restrict that legislation, as rabies is a killer disease for humans and for animals.
Mr. MacGregor : I share my hon. Friend's concern. I think that he knows that the Government have no intention of supporting any proposal which would increase the risk of rabies being introduced into this country. Scientific evidence on rabies control measures is being reassessed at Community level. Formal proposals from the Commission will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : A week on Monday there will be a debate on the report by the Select Committee on Sittings of the House. Would the Leader of the House consider making a change so that we might debate facilities in the House for disabled people? I remind him that last summer I brought a group of blind students from Temple Bank school for the visually handicapped in Bradford to the House. There is nowhere for them to sit and nowhere for them to have a meal, so they had to walk out, leading each other to a nearby park to have something to eat. At the same time, the private dining rooms were full of corporate hospitality, with Members wining and dining chums and using the facilities there. Those dining room bookings are not published, to maintain a cloak of secrecy.
Could we have a debate on such facilities, coupled with a debate on the report by the Select Committee on Members' Interests on the lobbying organisations which book dining rooms through Members? That report has been in the hands of the Leader of the House for two or three months, yet the report which proposes that our sitting hours should be cut and looks after the selfish interests of Members of Parliament is to be given priority. That is completely wrong.
Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman talks total nonsense. The report goes way beyond the question of sittings and deals with a number of other important matters of procedure. I know that the vast majority of hon. Members would agree that many Members wish the subject of sittings to be debated, considered and probably changed. That has been made clear to me throughout my time as Leader of the House, and that is what all the pressure has been for. Therefore, it is right for us to give early consideration to the report of the Committee. That would be the wish of most hon. Members.
On the other matters which the hon. Gentleman raised, it is not necessary to have a debate a week on Monday,
Column 472
because he will know that the appropriate Committee of the House is considering the possibility of extending refreshment facilities for Members' guests.Mr. Cryer : That is what was said last summer.
Mr. MacGregor : The Committee is actively considering the matter. Also, as the hon. Gentleman knows, some building work will be required, and it is studying that.
On the report by the Select Committee on Members' Interests, I hope to find time for that in due course, but the Select Committee on Sittings of the House undoubtedly takes precedence.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : It has just been announced that the European Community has broken all records by spending more than £1,000 million this year on dumping high-tar tobacco in the third world and in eastern Europe. Although I appreciate that the Government can do nothing about that shameful expenditure, will the Leader of the House ensure that, next week, out of respect for the sufferers from that expenditure in the third world, the Government will not submit any more supplementary estimates to cover excessive and unlawful expenditure by the European Community?
Mr. MacGregor : As my hon. Friend knows, I have been as critical as anyone of the common agricultural policy regime on tobacco. When I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I endeavoured to get that policy changed substantially. The supplementary estimates were passed in accordance with the procedures of the House, following a debate. That is why they were accepted.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : When the Minister for the Environment and the Countryside returns on Monday from the important weekend conference in Estoril on ozone layer depletion, will he report to the House? There is the possibility of 300,000 skin cancers--that is not an alarmist forecast, but a NASA statistic--and if anything is to be done about that appalling prospect in the northern hemisphere, it must be done early, before the spring conditions of April and May.
Mr. MacGregor : I shall consider in what way my hon. Friend can, if appropriate, report to the House.
Mr. Conal Gregory (York) : Will my right hon. Friend consider an urgent debate on the Representation of the People Act 1983, in view of the widespread practice in the student community of planning for and voting twice at parliamentary elections? Will he draw to the attention of the House the fact that that offence may result in a penalty of £2,000 as well as disfranchisement? May we have a debate to allow us to consider abuses by the student community at the ballot box?
Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is correct. Voting twice in a parliamentary election or byelection is an offence and it is subject to a fine of up to £2,000. I am happy to underline that fact, to which my hon. Friend rightly drew attention. I shall consider what other steps we might take to draw further attention to the issue.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : There is widespread interest on both sides of the House on the constitutional issues affecting Scotland and Wales. I wish to encourage that, because such matters should be approached constructively. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether, subsequent to the Scottish Grand Committee
Column 473
sitting in Edinburgh on Monday, he will bring forward an opportunity for the other two half matter days to be taken by that Committee so that we can consider the other constitutional options open to the people of Scotland? Surely we must debate all the options before the general election.Mr. MacGregor : I know that another two half-matter days have been proposed, but I do not know when they will be taken.
Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that freedom of speech and the conduct of elections are paramount to the House? Will he find time to debate those issues in light of The Sunday Times court ruling yesterday which prevents local authorities from taking action on libel? Isle of Wight county council threatened my previous agent, John Bull, with libel as a result of pressure from the ruling group of Liberal Democrats, for remarks that he made during the borough elections. The Liberal Democrats continue to use taxpayers' and chargepayers' money to pressurise officers of the county council to try to gag proper debate on the Isle of Wight.
Mr. MacGregor : I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate on that matter next week, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the point that he makes. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will find other ways of raising the matter in the House.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : I was very disappointed to hear no mention in the business statement of the remaining stages of the Offshore Safety Bill. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that it sailed through its Committee stage on Tuesday morning. It has widespread support in the House and among those people who have members of their families working offshore. There is a growing belief in Scotland that the Bill may fall by the wayside because of the forthcoming election. That would be a great shame because we have all been waiting for the Bill, which was born out of the excellent Cullen report. On behalf of all those men and women who work in our offshore installations and standby vessels, I make a plea to the right hon. Gentleman that he bring the Bill to the Floor of the House for its remaining stages as soon as possible.
Mr. MacGregor : As the House knows, I am trying to accommodate as many Bills as possible, as quickly as possible, bearing in mind the need to give them full and proper consideration. I entirely agree about the importance of getting that Bill on the statute book, and I hope that we shall be able to do so.
Sir Michael Neubert (Romford) : Will there be an opportunity next week to debate early-day motion 710?
[That this House calls on the Secretary of State for the Home Department to take the necessary steps to ensure that all television programmes, including party political broadcasts, on all channels, which report on, or comment on, political matters are signed and subtitled, so that the two and a half million people who are deaf or hard of hearing are put on a par with the general hearing public in the run up to the general election.]
It proposes that all political broadcasts on television be signed and subtitled for the deaf and hard of hearing. Would not such a proposal inflict unnecessary suffering on
Column 474
many people? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while there can be few advantages to the distressing disability of deafness, not hearing party political broadcasts must be one of them?Mr. MacGregor : I was about to give my hon. Friend a different answer, because I thought that his question would go in a different direction. As he will know, programme content and scheduling are matters for the broadcasters, not for the Government. In this case, it is for them to decide.
| Next Section
| Home Page |