HC Deb 20 April 1967 vol 745 cc808-22
Mr. Heath

May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman)

Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 24TH APRIL—In the morning—

Remaining stages of the Royal Assent Bill [Lords] and of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

Resumed debate on the Second Reading of the Post Office (Data Processing Service) Bill.

In the afternoon—

Supply [17th Allotted Day]: Debate on Problems of the Regions, which will arise on an Opposition Motion.

TUESDAY, 25TH APRIL—Remaining stages of the Water (Scotland) Bill and, if there is time, of the Remuneration of Teachers (Scotland) Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 26TH APRIL—In the morning—

Motion on Finance Bills.

Motions on the West Midlands (Amendment) Order, the Anti-Dumping Duty Order, and the National Insurance (Earning) Regulations.

In the afternoon—

Progress on the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill.

THURSDAY, 27TH APRIL—Completion of the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill.

FRIDAY, 28TH APRIL—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY, 1ST MAY—The proposed business will be:

In the morning we shall facilitate proceedings on the Live Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill.

In the afternoon—

Supply [18th Allotted Day]:

Debate on the F111K Aircraft Contract, which will arise on an Opposition Motion.

Mr. Heath

First, can the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House what arrangements are being made to mark in Parliament the centenary of the Canadian Parliament?

Secondly, when will the Finance Bill be published?

Thirdly, in view of the confusion which seems to have arisen about the statement of the Foreign Secretary to S.E.A.T.O. in Washington, and the purpose of the visit of the Secretary of State for Defence to the Far East, would the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Secretary of State for Defence will make a statement on his return?

Mr. Crossman

I agree that the centenary of the Canadian Parliament is an occasion of which note should be taken, and I hope to bring a Motion of congratulation before the House next week.

I hope that the Finance Bill will be published not later than next Tuesday.

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's third question is, "Yes". I can certainly give an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make a statement on his return.

Mr. Hector Hughes

Will my right hon. Friend find time in the very near future, probably next week, for a debate on Motion No. 510, which deals with railway vouchers for returning seamen who wish to visit their families? A very important social matter indeed.

[That this House is of opinion that for social, family, economic and other reasons the withdrawal by British Railways of the cheap fare railway vouchers hitherto available to seamen and their families is wrong as it frustrates family re-unions, deprives British Railways of fares, diminishes British Railways income and now calls upon Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Transport, by legislation or otherwise, to restore to British seamen and their families the relevant facilities which they have hitherto enjoyed.]

Mr. Crossman

I appreciate the importance which my hon. and learned Friend, like many others, attaches to this subject, but since he stresses the urgency of it, and calls for a debate next week, I cannot really give him a complete assurance about that.

Mr. Mawby

Taking account of the announcement made by the Leader of the House that a Private Member's Bill will be given Government time, would he say, first, on what criteria the Government decide which Private Members' Bills should be given Government time, and—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question relating to next week's business.

Mr. Mawby

I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for raising this matter now. I will have to find some other way of raising it.

In view of the debacle last night, will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to announce, either next week or shortly afterwards, that we shall be able to arrange our procedure in such a way that we can have sensible debates on procedure?

Mr. Crossman

Quite a number of Private Members' Bills have been helped by the Government in recent times. I can think, for example, of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill, to which we have given certain assistance, and the Family Planning Bill. There have been quite a number of such Bills. If the hon. Gentleman studies them he might be able to deduce the categories of Bills which we help and the categories which we do not help.

In regard to what he described as the debacle last night, it would, I think, depend on hon. Gentlemen opposite whether we have a reptition of such occurrences in the future.

Mr. Tapsell

On a point of order. With great respect to the Ruling which you gave earlier about the special position of Ministers, Mr. Speaker, is it not rather extraordinary that a question which is ruled out of order can, nevertheless, be answered by a Minister?

Mr. Speaker

I rather thought so, too.

Mr. Heffer

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to allow time for the Live Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill will be widely welcomed and—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Time is to be provided for the hon. Gentleman's Bill. If he wishes to ask a question, he must ask for time for something else to be debated.

Mr. Heffer

I thought that it would be churlish of me to ask for something else as well, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Tilney

Since the Live Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill—or, at any rate, the present ineptly-drawn Measure of that name—is likely to prove controversial, surely it should not be taken on a Monday morning?

Mr. Crossman

I seriously considered that matter and I thought that Monday morning was just the right time to take the Bill.

Mr. Winnick

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to Motion No. 507, on colour discrimination?

[That this House, aware of the widespread discrimination against coloured people in this country which has now been confirmed by the Political and Economic Planning Report, calls on the Government to extend the Race Relations Act to cover employment, housing and insurance.]

Is there any chance of our debating that Motion in the near future, in addition to the P.E.P. Report on colour discrimination?

Mr. Crossman

The Report of the P.E.P. will, I should have thought, need careful study. I believe that the First Report of the Race Relations Board will be laid before Parliament shortly. I suggest that it would be better to wait for that Report before deciding what action we should take.

Mr. David Steel

Is the Leader of the House aware that he unintentionally misled the House in an earlier reply? It is not true to say that any Government time has been given to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill.

Mr. Crossman

I did not say "time", although perhaps I should not ask for gratitude. I said that certain facilities had been provided.

Mr. Lubbock

Will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements to have copies of the P.E.P. Report on Racial Discrimination placed in the Vote Office, so that hon. Members can have copies before the debate?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that next Wednesday's Motion on the Finance Bill is the one which we were supposed to take last night? What plans does he have for re-tabling the other procedural Motions, particularly those which are not really opposed?

Mr. Crossman

I intend to re-table only the Motion on the Finance Bill. I do take note of the feeling of the House. As I explained last night, we decided to withdraw the Motions because we are most anxious not to push through things which do not, broadly speaking, have the consent of the House.

Mr. McNamara

In view of the fact that the Government are providing time for the Live Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill on Monday, and your remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), Mr. Speaker, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Government will allow time for the remaining stages of that Bill to be completed during that week?

Mr. Crossman

That is not really a question for me. I suggest to my hon. Friend that we see what happens to the Bill; that we see how it goes.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

Does not what the Leader of the House said about the facilitating of Private Members' Bills mean that he has decided that the Government should facilitate a Bill for the ending of human life and a Bill to prevent the ending of animal life? In view—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Business question time is not argument time.

Mr. Weitzman

In regard to the Criminal Justice Bill and particularly the Clause relating to the majority verdicts of juries, would my right hon. Friend consider allowing a free vote on any Amendment tabled to that Clause, particularly since there has been no general inquiry into the matter and very considerable criticism has been voiced about it?

Mr. Crossman

I should remind my hon. and learned Friend that I do not want ever again to trespass on the ground which is the prerogative of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary.

Sir H. Harrison

Has the Leader of the House exercised his mind about the unfortunate situation which arose last week, when we had a debate, under Standing Order No. 9. We lost one-sixth of the usual time allowed and for back benchers, after the Front Bench speakers and Privy Councillors, 100 per cent. of their time? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the position, so that if next week, or another one, you, Mr. Speaker, allowed the House to debate a Motion under Standing Order No. 9, because it is urgent or topical, we could have our traditional three hours?

Mr. Crossman

This is a matter which we would have to study carefully. I accept the figures which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave, but I do not see how could answer his question when replying to questions about the business for next week, or how I could deal with the matter without changing the procedures of the House. I find that changes in procedure are unpredictable as to whether or not we get them.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Does the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has put down a Motion relating to the Finance Bill for next Wednesday morning indicate that he is under the illusion that it will be uncontroversial?

Mr. Crossman

We discussed the matter yesterday and hon. Members objected. I felt that the right time to take this matter was Wednesday morning.

Mr. George Jeger

Is my right hon. Friend aware that certain views, not least among the staff of various departments which are responsible for the administration of the House, have been expressed about the period of the Whitsun Recess? Can he make a statement about that now?

Mr. Crossman

I have every reason now to believe that the hopes I expressed a few weeks ago will be fulfilled.

Mr. Barber

The right hon. Gentleman has announced that on Monday and Wednesday he is taking business which he knows to be controversial. This is particularly so with regard to Wednesday morning's business. It is well known that there are a number of hon. Members who do not agree with the Motion standing in his name. Would he tell the House quite clearly whether or not he stands by his assurance that controversial matters would not be considered at morning sittings?

Mr. Crossman

When I gave that assurance I gave it in terms of what we normally mean by controversy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—party controversy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Let us be quite clear about this. The question of live sports is not party controversy in the normal sense of the word. My assurance was given about party controversy. Next Wednesday morning we are discussing a recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure, unanimously approved by that Committee, and I do not think that I was transgressing in any way my assurance when I said that we would debate further that unanimously approved recommendation of an all-party Committee on that subject.

Mr. Heath

The Leader of the House did not qualify his original statement by the introduction of the word "party". He said "controversial". Is he not aware that because a Select Committee agrees on proposals to the House it does not mean that the proposals can be steamrollered through the House? When will he realise that one of the reasons why he cannot get—

Mr. Michael Foot

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Particularly when we are meeting at a time subsequent to a debate in which the Leader of the Opposition did not turn up to put his points, if he had objections, is it in order for the Leader of the House to use this opportunity of discussion of next week's business to make charges about steamrollering which everyone in the House who did turn up for that debate knows to be absolutely false?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) meant to refer to the Leader of the Opposition, not the Leader of the House. The Leader of the Opposition was protesting about the arrangements of next week's business. Mr. Heath.

Mr. Heath

When will the Leader of the House realise that one of the main reasons why he cannot get his proposals for reform through the House is that he does not adhere to the undertakings he has already given?

Mr. Crossman

When hon. Members shout "Object" I take it that they want further discussion. We did not have a vote against the Motion. Hon. Members opposite asked for further discussion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They asked for further discussion—I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman knew that by now—and that is what we are giving them.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that we might pursue this matter on Wednesday.

Mr. Barber

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I must ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not realise—this is in answer to his point—that when many hon. Members, or some hon. Members, shout "Object" it is precisely because in certain respects they disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. This is a controversial matter, and what I was asking quite clearly was: does he not realise that certainly most of us on this side of the House thought that when he said that non-controversial business would be taken at morning sittings, he meant non-controversial?

Mr. Crossman

If the right hon. Gentleman really felt that we should take business which was only to be dealt with unanimously, that would have limited the amount of business. I have had to consider very seriously what happens as a result of last night, when we had a shout of "Object". The use of that word clearly meant that something was disagreed but, basically, it meant that hon. Members did not want a decision to be taken then. They wanted further discussion, and I have provided time for further discussion.

Mr. Barber

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the guidance of the House —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The right hon. Gentleman has said that the use of the word "Object" last night was concerned with whether or not the House wanted to take a decision. Is it not the case that after 9.30 last night it was impossible for the House to take a decision other than unanimously to approve the proposals?

Mr. Speaker

That is a statement of Parliamentary fact.

Mr. Ogden

May I call the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that next Monday's debate on the problems of the regions will be curtailed by half an hour compared with the usual time, because it is taking place on a Monday? Will he, perhaps, consult through the usual channels to see whether extra time might be given so that we on this side could take more part in the debate?

Mr. Crossman

I am prepared to consult through the usual channels. This was one of the points raised in the Select Committee on Procedure, of which I took cognisance. I have a good deal of sympathy with those who resent the loss of half an hour's debate.

Sir W. Teeling

Will the Leader of the House try to find time for Motion No. 399, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) and many others of us?

[That this House notes with concern the Minister of Transport's refusal to give a general direction to order a public inquiry into the sale of houses by the British Railways Board, without advertising, without offering them to their existing tenants, and without going to public auction; asks her to reconsider her opinion that such sales are a matter for day to day management; and calls upon the Minister to give a general direction to British Railways to order a public inquiry.]

I ask because since the statements have been made we have a lot of information which showed that these houses were bought for £500 and sold for £1,300—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot argue the merits of the Motion. He can ask for time for it.

Sir W. Teeling

May we have time for it?

Mr. Crossman

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might have a word with me behind the Chair. This Motion goes a long time back. I should like to look at it again. If he gives me a little time I would like to consult him.

Mr. Ridsdale

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that I, too, would like to speak to him behind the Chair on Motion No. 399, and possibly ask him for time on a Monday, as I can assure him that it is a non-controversial Motion, at least to those on both sides who have signed it?

Mr. Crossman

That does not tempt me into committing myself to a morning sitting but, certainly, we might have a little talk behind the Chair.

Mr. William Hamilton

Will my right hon. Friend allow me to assure him that he has the unanimous support of this side for Wednesday morning's business, but will he not now admit that he made a mistake in his original undertaking that morning sittings would deal only with non-controversial matters and arrange that from now on we shall have the most controversial business possible at morning sittings?

Mr. Crossman

My hon. Friend must not tempt me to go too far. I made a statement yesterday on Ministerial statements made in the mornings in which I tried to give a ruling which I thought both sides would find fair, and I was surprised and relieved to find how little criticism it got.

It is also true about other business—Prayers, for example. We have taken a number of Prayers in the mornings which, I think it is true to say, were not strictly and absolutely non-controversial, but, on the whole, it was acceptable to the House that they should be taken in the morning. I think that we are progressing very satisfactorily in working out, by experiment, what business we should take in the morning.

Sir D. Renton

With reference to Wednesday's business, can the Leader of the House say when we will have a complete and marshalled list of the Government's Amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill?

Mr. Crossman

I think I am right in saying that nearly all the Government's Amendments are now there. I am hoping that they will be—of course, they will be—there within this week, but I was very much aware of the need for allowing good time, and had been prepared to have part of the stages of the Bill taken a little later, but I gathered that it was to the convenience of the Opposition to have the two days next week.

Mr. Hogg

Is the Leader of the House aware that this business was the subject of agreement, but that it was certainly not for the convenience of the Opposition alone that it was done?

Mr. Crossman

I said that I had discovered that it was convenient for the Opposition, and as it was convenient to us it was convenient to both sides, and two conveniences make a double convenience.

Mr. Jopling

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. While hon. Members were fathoming that last remark, I called Mr. Jopling.

Mr. Jopling

What possible justification has the Leader of the House for giving preference to controversial business when it happens to be on party lines? Is not this the greatest arrogance towards the rights of back benchers?

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot argue merits at business question time. We can ask about business and ask for subjects to be discussed and the time for those subjects to be discussed.

Mr. Clark Hutchison

On Monday week, will the Leader of the House give time for the Livestock Export Control Bill, as it also deals with the care of animals?

Mr. Crossman

I am certainly prepared to consider that. We might talk also about that behind the Chair.

Sir Knox Cunningham

Will the Leader of the House say now, not behind the Chair, what he said earlier today, and confirm that the Whitsun Recess will be from 12th to 30th May?

Mr. Crossman

Yes. As I said, I have every hope that what I expressed as a hope can next week be made a firm commitment.

Mr. Buck

During the coming weeks, will the Leader of the House prevail on the Home Secretary to come to the House as soon as there is an allegation of substantial maladministration in immigration procedures? We have had two outstanding cases, that of Miss Eriksson and that of Azizur Rehman—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member can ask for time for a debate.

Mr. Buck

May time be taken to discuss the cases of Miss Eriksson, the Swedish girl who was stripped when she came over here, and the case of the Pakistani boy who, although apparently adopted, was returned to Pakistan? Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to explain these matters to the House?

Mr. Crossman

I shall certainly transmit to my right hon. Friend the desires of the hon. Member, but I remind the hon. Member that, as a private Member, he has facilities for bringing home such cases to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Costain

As the Leader of the House is finding time to discuss the cruelty to hares, will he also find time to discuss the cruelty to tortoises, which has been reported today?

Mr. Crossman

All these are hypothetical questions. We had better wait until we see the actual proposals.

Mr. Webster

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what amount of Government time will be given for Second Readings of Bills refused the right to be introduced?

Mr. Crossman

I did not grasp the full content of that question. Will the hon. Member please repeat it?

Mr. Webster

I asked, with particular reference to the Live Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill, which failed to get the right to be introduced to the House, how much Government time the right hon. Gentleman will give to Bills of this nature for Second Reading.

Mr. Crossman

I think that we had better consider each Bill on its merits.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We have an important debate ahead. Mr. Kershaw.

Mr. Kershaw

Does what the Leader of the House said about the Recess amount to a formal announcement? It affects the putting down of Questions. Will the right hon. Gentleman go back on it next week, because we are getting to a point at which we cannot trust the right hon. Gentleman even in regard to announcements of business for the next week.

Mr. Crossman

I should have thought that an intemperate observation. I should have thought that the hon. Member would reflect that until we are completely clear about the timing of the Finance Bill it is impossible to give an absolutely firm assurance about the Recess. I made clear that we hope to give the publication date of the Finance Bill firmly next Tuesday. If so, I shall be able to give the hon. Member the information that he wants.

Mr. van Straubenzee

Does not the Leader of the House realise that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-Super-Mare (Mr. Webster) is of importance for the benefit of other sponsors of Bills? Dealing with next week's business strictly on principle, will he make clear on what grounds the Government will give time to a Bill which has not yet received a Second Reading? Is not this the first time that the Government have given time—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I dealt with this matter earlier. The hon. Member must refer to a particular Bill which has not had a Second Reading.

Mr. van Straubenzee

With respect, Sir, I am not one to stand my ground, but I respectfully suggest that this is a matter of importance. I am asking for guidance on next week's business and why the Government have given time to a Bill which has not yet received the approval of the House in principle by way of Second Reading.

Mr. Crossman

I am certainly prepared to consider and to give a considered reply to the hon. Member on the issue of principle involved. I suggest that he puts that question to me again when I shall try to give a considered reply on the new point which has been raised.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill

Does the Leader of the House realise that most hare coursing takes place in rural constituencies and, that quite apart from considerations of controversy, it is unfair to ask rural hon. Members to cancel arrangements made ahead and to travel especially to London to take part in a debate on Monday morning?

Mr. Crossman

I have reflected on this matter. I should have thought that the Live Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill was not strictly an agricultural or a rural Bill, but of interest to wide sections of the community in town and country alike.

Mr. Onslow

Can the Leader of the House explain why he has not set down for next week his own Motion No. 5 of yesterday, about the length of speeches? Does he want to earn the reputation of the "Demon Bungler of Westminster"?

Mr. Crossman

Again, I should have thought that an intemperate remark. If the hon. Member had listened to what I said when winding up the debate yesterday he would have realised that I made it clear that the fifth Motion was one which, in view of the view of the House, I did not want to press. The hon. Mem- ber must be fair to the Leader of the House. I made it perfectly clear yesterday—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. This noise is no contribution to Parliament.

Mr. Crossman

I made it perfectly clear yesterday that the arguments of the House on the subject of short speeches had impressed me and that I was not prepared to press the fifth Motion. We therefore decided not to put it down again.

Mr. Robert Cooke

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving time for the adjourned Second Reading debate on my Municipal Docks Bill, which I introduced last Friday and which was talked out by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)?

Mr. Crossman

Now that the hon. Member has reminded me, I will consider the possibilities, but I must predict to him that an affirmative reply would be extremely unlikely.

Mr. Gresham Cooke

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I shall call the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) when I have sat down, but I hope that hon. Members will not just simply think up questions at the end of business question time.

Mr. Gresham Cooke

On a point of order. The question I was about to ask arises from an answer given by the Leader of the House. As a London Member who can easily attend on Monday mornings, may I draw this point to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman? Hare coursing does not take place in London and, therefore, I should have thought the subject most unsuitable for a Monday morning sitting. Will he consider the interests of countrymen who want to have a chance of discussing the matter?