---

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend asked an ingenious variation of what has long been known as the West Lothian question, which as I have said before, ought now to be known as the Linlithgow question. I entirely share his view of the importance of those matters and I have said several times that I am bearing in mind sympathetically the request for a debate.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice (Lewisham, East): May I return the Leader of the House to the subject of London Underground? While I understand that he might not want to be bounced by what we read in the press, is he prepared to be bounced by a statement that has already been drafted on the privatisation of London Underground, which begins, "I can announce today that the Government have decided to privatise London Underground"? Does he accept that if such a statement is already drafted and ready to be made, the Minister should make that statement to the House, if that is the Government's intention? If it is not the Government's intention, should not the Minister tell the House why they have changed their policy? Finally, may I remind the Leader of the House that the statement ends, "The Minister expects tube users and Londoners in general to welcome such a proposal"? If we have such a debate, we in the Opposition will explain to him clearly why tube users and Londoners do not welcome that proposal.

Mr. Newton: I gave a reasonably clear answer to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) earlier in these exchanges and I cannot add to it. I am quite sure that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is in a position to make proposals, he will set out clearly the advantages to Londoners and all tube users.

Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton): Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate to celebrate the overwhelming success of the private pension fund industry, which contrasts so well with the shambles in France and Germany? In such a debate, we could point out the implications for pensioners of the idiotic proposals for a windfall tax on the privatised utilities, as so many of the privatised utilities' shareholders are, of course, pension funds.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, once again, makes a very good point. Not only do we not know on whom the windfall tax would fall or at what level it would be levied, but we certainly have not heard about its inevitable difficulties, disadvantages and potential losses for either consumers or shareholders, including, as he says, the interests of many pensioners.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West): Does the Leader of the House agree that we should find time to debate the

6 Feb 1997 : Column 1153

astronomical increase in the death rate in England and Wales during the week ending 10 January? Can he confirm Government statistics that the death rate in that week was 19,500--5,500 above the average over the past few years for the second week in January, and 8,500 above the annual average? Does he therefore agree that it is urgent that we should debate what contributed to that death rate--whether it was a combination of a particularly virulent strain of influenza going around the country and hypothermia during the very cold spell, or our hospitals' catastrophic inability to cope with the winter medical emergencies that they faced?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman implied that--unhappily--there are, of course, variations in such a statistic, which depend very much on the level of an epidemic, if such there be, and, indeed, the weather. I shall not attempt to go into that in detail. Although I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, I should make the point that we had a debate on health matters only yesterday.

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham): May I support the call of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), for a debate on the importance of stability in the finance of education institutions? During that debate, we could stress the anxieties of well over 1,000 of our grant-maintained school that they run the risk of finding that the parents' decision that the schools become grant-maintained will be overruled, resulting in up to 15 per cent. of their education funds being taken away from them and their classrooms, to be spent by bureaucrats in local education authorities.

Mr. Newton: After my hon. Friend's success in achieving a debate on Kentish matters yesterday, I had harboured the hope that he might take today off. But he has not, and has made another very good point.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): Is there not a compelling case for an early debate on the operation of the law on data protection? Many of my constituents have contacted me, who are absolutely outraged at the invasion of their privacy, having received a letter from the Prime Minister. I should like the Leader of the House to comment on the letter from his colleague, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), the chairman of the Conservative party, to my good friend and old colleague Harry Lees, who died 18 months ago. The letter, sent to the former Labour councillor and lifelong Labour party member, said that he could be an essential part of the Conservative election machine. Is not the law on data protection simply not working, given that people can receive such unsolicited letters from leading lights in the Conservative party?

Mr. Newton: Obviously, if the letter to a person who is deceased caused any distress, I am sure that all involved would very much regret it. I do not want to seem flippant over that matter. However, on the general thrust of what the hon. Gentleman said, it is not so long ago--although I do not think that I still have it--that I received a letter from the Labour party seeking my support in very similar terms.

Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester): May I add my voice to the general chorus of calls for a debate on the constitution,

6 Feb 1997 : Column 1154

perhaps concentrating on a still more specific subject than that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith): not the English question, but the Worcestershire question? Does my right hon. Friend understand that such a debate would enable me to explain the double constitutional whammy implied for Worcestershire in some of the plans floated for constitutional change: it would be dragged reluctantly into a regional assembly and dominated by Birmingham, while at the same time Scottish Members would be able to exercise a privilege that English Members did not have, and destroy our grant-maintained schools and fundholding practices?

Mr. Newton: The ingenuity with which my hon. Friends manage to make their points, disguised as requests for a debate, never ceases to amaze me. I congratulate my hon. Friend and will bear in mind his request as well.

Mr. Paddy Tipping (Sherwood): Will the Leader of the House respond to a request already made, to make time available to discuss the crisis of funding in further education? Surely it cannot be acceptable that Education Ministers have written to vice-principals, colleges are at risk of bankruptcy--some look set to lose £1 million--yet hon. Members have had no chance to debate the matter.

Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said earlier to the hon. Member for Dewsbury. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will be noted by those concerned.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): May I return to the subject of the Police Bill [Lords]? Since last weekend, the Home Secretary has received a letter from his eminence Cardinal Basil Hume about the implications of that Bill for confession and the other pastoral counselling carried out by ministers of all denominations. Would it be possible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to meet Church leaders before Second Reading to hear about their concerns, and for him to announce on Second Reading that the meetings that pastors have with their flock will be explicitly exempted from the police powers to bug confidential conversations?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman raised that matter last week, and I said then that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would consider the representations. I cannot add to that at this stage. As for the meeting that the hon. Gentleman suggests, I am not sure whether he is extending an invitation or whether an invitation has gone out from those concerned. I am sure that if one has, my right hon. and learned Friend will examine the matter carefully.

Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East): Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate specifically about children's health, including the dental health of children in the north-west? Bolton's children now have the worst teeth in the country, with twice the national average amount of decay. Should we not debate the need to improve children's health?

Mr. Newton: We debated such matters yesterday, on a motion tabled by the hon. Gentleman's party. I am not sure whether he managed to get into the debate, but if he did not, I assume that what he has just said is an expression of frustration.

Points of Order

4.12 pm

Mrs. Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Today I received a letter from the Prime Minister. I believe that that was because I hold one share in Yorkshire Water. He got both my name and the appropriate address wrong. Do you, Madam Speaker, think it appropriate for the Prime Minister to use his position to obtain the names and addresses of millions of people for a piece of cheap political propaganda? I am assured that Yorkshire Water did not offer the Prime Minister a list of shareholders. Do you not feel that such actions rather cheapen the position both of the Prime Minister and of the House of Commons?

---