HC Deb 16 February 1967 vol 741 cc808-26
Mr. Heath

Can the Leader of the House kindly state the business 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, 20TI I FEBRUARY: In the morning—

Diplomatic Privileges (Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies) (Amendment) Order.

In the afternoon—

Remaining stages of the Road Safety Bill, of the Road Traffic Bill and of the Misrepresentation Bill [Lords].

TUESDAY, 21ST FEBRUARY: Remaining stages of the Housing (Financial Provisions, &c.) (Scotland) Bill.

Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order and the Exchequer Equalisation Grant (Notional Rent Income) (Scotland) Order.

WEDNESDAY, 22ND FEBRUARY: In the morning—

Second Reading of the General Rate Bill [Lords], which is a Consolidation Measure.

In the afternoon—

Debate on a Motion to approve the White Paper on Transport Policy (Command No. 3057).

Remaining stages of the Post Office (Borrowing Powers) Bill, and of the Plant Health Bill [Lords] and the Forestry Bill [Lords], which are Consolidation Measures.

THURSDAY, 23RD FEBRUARY: Supply [9th Allotted Day]:

Debate on the increase in fees to be charged to overseas students, on an Opposition Motion.

As Seven o'clock, as the House is aware, the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down Opposed Private Business for consideration.

FRIDAY, 24TH FEBRUARY: Private Members' Motions.

MONDAY, 27TH FEBRUARY: The business proposed:

In the morning—

Opposition and other Prayers.

In the afternoon—

A Motion to approve the White Paper on Defence, which will be concluded on Tuesday, 28th February.

Mr. Heath

Could the Leader of the House renew his undertaking that, in the unfortunate event of negotiations with Malta breaking down, he would be prepared to reorganise business for next week in order for us to have a debate on that question? Will he take note that the House would be grateful if his right hon. Friend in charge of Commonwealth relations could make a statement at an early date?

Mr. Crossman

I renew the statement I made last week and would make every effort for that to be done. As to a statement being made by my right hon. Friend, 1 will communicate that suggestion to him and, if necessary, he will give one to the House.

Mr. Heffer

In view of the fact that over 100 hon. Members have now signed Motion 408 on the question of Vietnam, and in view of the deep feeling which exists on this question, will my right hon. Friend this week give us an assurance that we shall have an early debate; in fact rearrange the business so that we can have a debate on this very important problem within the coming week?

[That this House condemns the renewed United States bombing of North Vietnam, which so flagrantly undermines the peace initiatives of U Thant, the United Nations Secretary-General; and calls upon the Government unequivocally to dissociate the United Kingdom from this action.]

Mr. Crossman

I cannot add anything further to what I said last week. In the near future we shall have the Defence Estimates coming up and we have very little Government time. Time for general debates must be found by the Opposition.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider, having looked at the Vote on Account, showing that Government expenditure has gone up 8.5 per cent. and production by only 1 per cent., that this should be the subject of a debate in the House of Commons?

Mr. Crossman

That is a matter which no doubt we shall debate in due course. It is certainly something which the Opposition could consider for a Supply Day.

Sir G. de Freitas

In view of the increasing interest in the work of the Council of Europe, will the Leader of the House consider following the example of all, or nearly all, the other 17 members of the Council and provide time for a debate on the Council of Europe?

Mr. Crossman

Yes, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am aware of the increasing interest and, through the usual channels, I will discuss the possibility of having such a debate, but not, I am afraid, in the near future.

Mr. Heath

In regard to the right hon. Gentleman's reply about a debate on the Estimates, does he recall that it is the custom of the Government to provide time for an economic debate before the Budget and it is not the job of the Opposition to offer a Supply Day for it? There has been a vast, indeed, a flabbergasting, increase in Government expenditure, and this needs to be debated urgently.

Mr. Crossman

I shall certainly pay regard to that.

Mr. Winnick

Since the Opposition could not care tuppence about the war in Vietnam—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—could the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member cannot ask questions of the Leader of the Opposition during business time.

Mr. Winnick

May I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether he will provide for a debate on Vietnam within the next fortnight, (a) because of the situation there, and (b) because of the support shown of the Motion on the Order Paper?

Mr. Crossman

I am aware of the support shown for this Motion, but I repeat what 1 said last week. In the view of the Government, unless there is a substantial change in the situation, a debate in the near future is not justified.

Mr. Sandys

Will the Leader of the House provide time to debate Motion No. 413 in my name:

[That this House deplores the refusal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 13th December, 1966 to give any estimate of the effect of sanctions against Rhodesia upon Great Britain's balance of payments, and the refusal of the Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs to deny or confirm an estimate put to him at Question Time on 14th February, 1967; requests the Government to make available to the House the text of the Prime Minister's detailed statement to the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference, contained in a document, entitled Annex to CPM(66/2) 2nd Meeting, 6th September, 1966, in which he estimates that the cost to Great Britain's balance of payments up to the end of 1966, together with the special aid given or offered to Zambia, would amount to about £100 million; and calls upon the Prime Minister to explain why information on this important matter is being withheld from Parliament.]

This calls on the Prime Minister to explain why he has withheld from the House information about the cost of sanctions which he has been able to give to other Commonwealth Governments. If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to find time for an early debate, will he assure us that the Prime Minister will make a full statement next week about this matter, because the House has been disgracefully treated?

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot argue on a business question.

Mr. Crossman

I think there might have been an opportunity at Question Time this afternoon for the Prime Minister to refer to this, but unfortunately it was omitted because the Question was not asked. I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. If the right hon. Gentleman could persuade his colleagues to change the subject for debate on a Supply Day next week, this possibly could be the topic.

Mrs. Anne Kerr

Does not the Leader of the House accept that the resumption of bombing by the United States on North Vietnam in fact constitutes a change in policy? As there is very widespread discontent throughout Britain and in the House of Commons at the fact that U Thant's appeal and the Pope's appeal have been completely thrown aside, does not my right hon. Friend agree that there should be a speedy acceptance of the plea for a debate on Vietnam in this House?

Mr. Crossman

No. I do not agree with my hon. Friend on this. The Prime Minister made a full statement on his talks with the Russian Prime Minister. We are all disappointed that opportunities for peace which seemed to be coming did not come, but I should have thought that there was not a new situation justifying a debate.

Mr. G. Campbell

On Motion No. 365, the Leader of the House said last week that he would convey to the Secretary of State for Scotland the wish for a statement about the anomalous situation concerning the pay award to Scottish local government employees.

[That this House deplores the arbitrary application of the Government's economic policy, resulting in the rejection of a pay rise for local government employees in Scotland which has been granted to equivalent staff in England and Wales: and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to rectify this anomaly.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman be making a statement on this next week?

Mr. Crossman

I think I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend answered two Questions on this matter. I do not think he has anything to add to what he said in those Answers on 2nd February.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the words he used about yet another debate and about the impossibility of having a debate unless the Opposition find time for it? It is some months since we debated Vietnam and the Prime Minister constantly says this is the most important question in the world. Is the share of the House of Commons in the conduct and formulation of foreign affairs to be reduced to zero?

Mr. Crossman

I would, of course, always listen with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend in his views on foreign affairs, but the last time we debated Vietnam was on the Adjournment before Christmas when some of my hon. Friends quite rightly spoke at some considerable length on it. The question is whether we should have another debate in this period when we are putting forward the Defence Estimates and there is a great block of work to be done. I should have thought there would be opportunities during the two days on defence and the three days on the Service Estimates for this subject to be raised by my hon. Friends. What I said was that the Government could not find special time for a debate on this subject in the near future.

Mr. Heath

May I return to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)? Is this not a matter of the utmost public importance? Whatever view hon. and right hon. Members take about the policies to be pursued towards Rhodesia, ought not the House to be given the facts? As the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he is unable to give the facts and it is known that these facts were given to the members of the Commonwealth, will the Leader of the House give a firm undertaking now that either the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give the House of Commons the same information as was given to the Commonwealth?

Mr. Crossman

I am certainly prepared to convey to the Prime Minister the wish of the Leader of the Opposition for a statement next week on this subject.

Mr. Dickens

May I press my right hon. Friend further on the question of an early debate on Vietnam? Is he aware that the terms of Motion No. 408, which stands in my name and the names of 103 of my hon. Friends, is an emphatic repudiation of the Government's policy over Vietnam? Is my right hon. Friend fur- ther aware that this House has not debated Vietnam for eight months'? Will he arrange for a debate in the next week or so on this very vital matter'?

Mr. Crossman

I should not have thought that the description my hon. Friend gave entirely incorporated the views of the other 100 or more who signed the Motion.

Mr. Clark Hutchison

Is it the view of the Government continually to block the Livestock Control Bill, yes or no?

Mr. Crossman

The hon. Member knows very well the practice on Fridays with such Bills. The fact that a Bill is blocked does not mean that the Government oppose the Measure or are concerned at all. This is a normal practice on Fridays. What it means is that time is not likely to be found for the Bill.

Mr. Mayhew

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in accordance with the normal practice, the Defence White Paper was made available to the Press this morning but it was not available to Members of Parliament until 2.30 this afternoon? Will he look again at this practice? Is he aware that at a luncheon of the Foreign Press Association in the House of Commons today hon. Members interested in this matter had to learn the defence policy of the Government from a friendly journalist from a Communist country? If an hon. Member undertakes to observe the embargo on publication, why should he not be trusted with the Defence White Paper as much as a Communist journalist?

Mr. Crossman

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for raising this matter in a very good-humoured way. When I was both a journalist and back-bench Member of Parliament I used to have a similar frustration in thinking that I was trusted less as an M.P. than as a journalist with regard to the pre-release of reports. I am prepared to look into this, but great problems are involved in giving precisely the same concession to back-bench Members of Parliament as are given to journalists, who are under a pledge of secrecy before a statement is made.

Sir R. Cary

May I thank the Leader of the House for so promptly providing time for a debate on transport on Wednesday next? If that debate indicates future legislation. could it be preceded by an explanatory White Paper, before the Bill is published? Dividing the country into new transport conurbations may be a new form of public ownership or control. Surely, therefore, the House would be more entitled to a better explanation than could come from the generalities of a Second Reading debate?

Mr. Crossman

I thank the hon. Member for what he has said. I cannot anticipate what my right hon. Friend will say in the debate, but I can guess that further legislation will possibly be suggested.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

On a point of order. Have not hon. Members been impugned considerably by the statement of the Leader of the House that journalists from Communist countries can be trusted with information that hon. Members cannot be trusted with?

Mr. Crossman

If in any way I did suggest such a thing, that was not my intention. I intended to point out that this is an old problem—that the Press are given some hours to prepare their reports before publication—which is usually in the afternoon in this House—at a certain time in the Vote Office. This is an old problem. I am willing to have it considered again. We might discuss it through the usual channels, since this is a source of irritation for all hon. Members who are concerned when talking with the Press at luncheons. It is ignominious to find that the Press knows something and one does not. I said that there was often a problem in trying to reconcile different interests.

Mr. Speaker

There is no point of order involved in the statement of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), as far as the Chair is concerned.

Mr. Lubbock

Is the Leader of the House aware that back benchers are in some difficulty, in regard to morning sittings, in knowing whether a Statutory Instrument will be taken in the morning or the evening? Is he further aware that it would be of great assistance if a notice were to appear on the Order Paper every time a Statutory Instrument is tabled saying whether it will be taken before lunch or after Ten o'clock in the evening?

Mr. Crossman

I appreciate that this is a problem, and I have been considering how best to deal with it. Normally we do not put the Orders down as part of our business, because Prayers are moved by the Opposition. This is a legitimate problem, especially for back benchers who want to know in advance when an Order will be discussed. I am willing to discuss this matter through the usual channels.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

Will my right hon. Friend take seriously the question of information to Members of Parliament? It was very embarrassing to be asked by correspondents from Bulgaria, Holland and Japan what the defence policy of Her Majesty's Government was and have to say that I did not know. Will he therefore look into this matter, not complacently, but with a view to changing the situation so as to put backbench Members of Parliament at least on the level of journalists?

Mr. Crossman

I am glad that my hon. Friend has complete confidence that when he studies the Defence Estimates he will know all about defence. I will consider this problem, but I cannot add to what I have said already.

Mr. Younger

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his refusal to grant a debate on the failure to give local authority officers in Scotland the rise in pay to which they are entitled will cause widespread dismay throughout Scotland? Has he been informed that opposition to this policy spreads right across the parties and includes many of his hon. Friends? Will he therefore give us a debate?

Mr. Crossman

I have been informed of the interest in this subject in Scotland, and I will communicate the views of the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Michael Foot

Will my right hon. Friend consider the extremely unsatisfactory position that arises from his answers in response to requests for a debate about Vietnam? Does he seriously suggest that we could debate this matter generally and fully during the course of the defence debates? If so, we shall need to take such steps as we can to ensure that we get much more time for the Defence debates. We shall have to insist upon it. Does he think it satisfactory that we were last able to debate the matter on the Adjournment, when there are some restrictions? Will he finally reconsider his statement that he thinks that possibly some of those who signed Motion No. 100 may have qualifications about it? If he does so, that is all the more reason for having a debate. Will not he consider the fact that there is a widespread demand from almost every back-bencher on this side of the House for an early debate on this matter, because we disagree with the Government's statement of the way in which the settlement which was so near was eventually ruptured? Can we have a debate?

Mr. Crossman

I will bring these matters to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who, no doubt, will consider them. I will consult him on the question whether the situation justifies a debate. All that I said was that I thought it unlikely that we should be able to find time during the immediate future, when defence is debated. I did not suggest to my hon. Friend—it would not be for me, but for you, Mr. Speaker—that we would find time for a debate on Vietnam; I said that opportunities would arise on which this subject might well be raised.

Mr. Kershaw

The Leader of the House will be aware that there has not been time to debate the Prayer on the Gloucester Order. Is he able to hold out any hopes that time can be found for a Motion on the subject during next week?

Mr. Crossman

The Gloucester Order is on our list and will come forward in due course.

Mr. Raphael Tuck

My right hon. Friend has said that there was no new situation in Vietnam. Previously he said that if there were a substantial change in the situation he would consider a debate. Does not he consider that the renewal of the bombing of North Vietnam constitutes such a substantial change?

Mr. Crossman

I appreciate that my hon. Friend thinks that. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary appreciate that he thinks that. We differ on the degree of substantiality.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) on the question of pay to local authority officers in Scotland is totally inadequate? As he knows, the same answer was given last week, and it caught us unaware. If the Secretary of State for Scotland is too ashamed to make a statement to the House on this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman suggest inviting the First Secretary to do so instead?

Mr. Crossman

I suggest that the idea that my right hon. Friend is ashamed of discussing anything with the hon. Member is a gross maligning of his reputation as a debater. Scottish matters are being discussed next week—I believe on Tuesday.

Mr. Frederic Harris

In view of the farce of the attendance on Monday mornings, such as last Monday, when there was hardly a back-bencher of the Socialist party present, is it worth while going ahead next Monday morning with similar business?

Mr. Crossman

There is a misunderstanding by those who were not present during the procedural debate on morning sittings. It was made quite clear that we would be discussing less important business in the mornings than we usually did in the afternoons. I still maintain that the number of hon. Members from the Opposition who attend in the hours of the morning sittings is not markedly smaller than the number who attend similar debates at One o'clock in the morning.

Mr. S. C. Silkin

In view of the Prime Minister's reference in his recent Swansea speech to the proposed leasehold legislation, is my right hon. Friend now in a position to say when this long-awaited Bill will be published, and when it will be debated?

Mr. Crossman

Speaking with my usual caution, I think that the question of leasehold will be debated before Easter.

Sir H. Harrison

May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the extraordinary reply he made to my hon. Friend's question about blocking the Livestock Export Control Bill. One reason why he said it has been blocked was that the Government would not want to give it time. I remind him that it is a Private Members' Bill and that if it is not blocked it has to take its normal place in private Members' allotted time.

Mr. Crossman

I have nothing to add to what I have said. The practice observed was the normal practice when Bills are blocked. No one can control the right of individual Members to block a Bill.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu

Has my right hon. Friend noticed Motion No. 415 on the Paper, dealing with the Defence of Peace in the Minds of Men—

[That this House, noting that 20 years have now elapsed since the foundation of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and noting the increased nationalism and rising tensions throughout the world which have occurred in the absence of any significant action by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation to encourage a sense of world community, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to propose at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation a programme to encourage a dual perspective in education, world as well as national, so that opportunity is given in the curriculum for balancing national loyalty with a measure of conscious loyalty to the human race as a whole in all its diversity.]

—under the names of the right hon. Members for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) and 85 other Members, and will he state when we may have a debate on it?

Mr. Crossman

I am aware of this Motion, which raises an extremely important subject, but again I must say to my hon. Friend that I do not see any chance in the immediate future of the Government giving time for what I agree is an extremely important matter.

Mr. Hastings

In addition to the extraordinary lack of frankness about the cost of sanctions, referred to by my hon. Friend, is the Leader of the House aware of the speech which the Commonwealth Secretary is reported to have made in New Zealand yesterday in which he clearly implied that in the event of sanctions failing the Government would consider the use of force despite the blood- shed and misery which this would bring? Is not this a radical change of policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to deal with this also when he makes his statement?

Mr. Crossman

Again I say to the hon. Gentleman that if the Opposition wish to censure us once again about our Rhodesian policy, either in the past or in the present, they must find their own opportunity for doing so. I promised that I would put to the Prime Minister the need for a statement. I shall not go further than that.

Mr. Ridsdale

May I ask the Leader of the House whether his attention has been drawn to Motion No. 414:

[That this House, noting that the Government already has more Ministers more highly paid than at any other time in history, censures Her Majesty's Government for sanctioning an additional increase in salary for one of their Ministers from £72 a week to £108 a week at the same time as they appeal to lower paid workers for severe wage restraint.]

May I point out how difficult it is going to be to explain this breaking of the wage freeze by the Government?

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot argue merits on business question time. The hon. Member can ask for time to debate this.

Mr. Crossman

I think I am right in saying that this Motion appeared only today. I will certainly draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I think that he will probably be only too anxious to reply to it.

Viscount Lambton

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement on foot-and-mouth disease? More than a month ago he said that he would make a statement. Week follows week with assurances but no statement. Surely this must come to an end?

Mr. Crossman

I do not think that there has been undue delay on this. As I said last week, this is a subject of great importance on which a very precise analysis is needed. I think that my right hon. Friend will make the statement next Wednesday morning.

Mr. McMaster

In view of the intolerable and rising rate of unemployment in the economically weaker parts of the United Kingdom, and particularly in Northern Ireland, will the Leader of the House provide an early day to debate the Government's failure in this field?

Mr. Crossman

I think that my answer to even more important topics is to say that we have not time for this in the near future.

Mr. MacArthur

Will the Leader of the House reconsider the question of the local government officers in Scotland? Will he recognise that his answers are completely unsatisfactory, because the carrying of messages to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland produces no reaction of any kind at all? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish business to which he referred for next Tuesday is not a suitable vehicle to discuss a matter of this kind, and will he even now try to persuade his right hon. Friend not to hide behind Written Answers but to make a statement and answer questions about this critical issue?

Mr. Crossman

I think that this is stirring up trouble without much basis. I believe that Question Time next Wednesday afternoon is likely to be devoted largely to Questions to my right hon. Friend. There is an opportunity, therefore, for asking him questions then. There is on Tuesday a whole day's business which is Scottish, and I would have thought that it was not beyond the wit of Scots to find a way of referring to this subject on one of those occasions.

Mr. MacArthur

On a point of order. If an hon. Member tables a Question to the Secretary of State next Wednesday about local government officers, is the Leader of the House saying that you, Mr. Speaker, will call that Question even if it is not reached?

Mr. Speaker

I did not understand the Leader of the House to say that. If he did, he was over-stating his capacity as Leader of the House.

Sir R. Russell

Reverting to the answer given by the Leader of the House to my two hon. Friends about the Livestock Export Control Bill, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Bill is being blocked by the Government Whips on duty? If they are doing that on a freelance basis, will he either remove them from the Front Bench, or remove the blockage?

Mr. Crossman

I said that the practice observed in the blocking was normal practice. It is true, as he says, that the individuals in question, I gather, were Government Whips. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I said that I gather this is what the hon. Gentleman says. If he says this, I will certainly investigate the strength of it.

Mr. Heath

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Government are now interfering with private Members' time on Friday and deliberately using all their powers to block these Bills?

Mr. Crossman

It is the hon. Gentleman who made this assertion, into which I will now inquire.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is totally unfair for him to suggest that Scottish Members should dodge in and out of the rules of order next Wednesday to discuss a clear issue on which we need to have a clear and unambiguous statement? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an appalling and confused situation in Scotland which needs to be clarified and debated? Hon. Members from Scotland on both sides want this debate. Why will he not protect hon. Members and give us even three hours of debate next week?

Mr. Crossman

I said that the whole of Tuesday was to be devoted to Scottish business. In addition I added that on Wednesday afternoon most of Question Time would be dealing with Scotland. All I said was that I thought it unlikely that this question could not be raised in in the course of that period.

Sir R. Russell

If the right hon. Gentleman is not aware who is blocking these two Bills, will he be here at 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon to see for himself?

Mr. Crossman

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the assertion which he did. I said that I would investigate it.

Mr. John Fraser

Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has received an assurance from the Opposition that they will cease to block the House of Lords Delaying Powers Bill?

Mr. Robert Cooke

Will the Leader of the House give a categorical assurance that the Government Whips will not block the Bill in question next Friday?

Mr. Crossman

I think that we had better first investigate the claim made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

Returning to the question of Scottish business next week, will the right hon. Gentleman give us a clear assurance that Scottish Members will be able to raise the question of N.A.L.G.O. in the debates next week and at Question Time, despite the narrow scope of the debate, and despite the fact that it is now too late to put down Questions for it? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us that assurance, because there is grave concern in Scotland about this matter?

Mr. Crossman

It is not for me to say what will and will not be in order in these debates. This is a matter for Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Peyton

The right hon. Gentleman used the words, "I gather that the individuals concerned were Government Whips". It had nothing to do with the suggestion made by my hon. Friend. Can the right hon. Gentleman produce any precedent for a predecessor in his position getting up at that Box and confessing that private Members' business is being blocked by Government Whips?

Mr. Crossman

The question of precedent is there. What happened was that the hon. Gentleman, if I did not misunderstand him, made an assertion that it had been blocked by Government Whips. I said that I would investigate this and give an answer.

Mr. Clark Hutchison

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) is trying to put a second supplementary question. I am not prepared to have a second round unless the House advises me otherwise.

Sir Knox Cunningham

Does the Leader of the House not remember that when I asked him last week why the Government were blocking these two Bills he sent me a letter explaining why they objected to them, and I asked why the Government should block them.

Mr. Crossman

The hon. and learned Gentleman must not be unreasonable. He asked what view we took of the Bills, and I thought he was asking me what we thought of the two Bills, and I gave the view expressed by the Minister of Agriculture about the qualities of the Bills. That is all he asked me for, and I gave it to him.

Sir Knox Cunningham

That is not so.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have not called the hon. and learned Gentleman again.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon

Reverting to the N.A.L.G.O. question, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that business in Scotland is as varied as business in England, and that there is a real concern that Scottish Members will not be able to get a clear guide from the Government next week about this issue, which is of very great importance to Scotland, unless special provision for it is made by the Secretary of State for Scotland either in a statement or in a debate on the matter?

Mr. Crossman

The Secretary of State for Scotland has sat listening to these interjections, and I have no doubt that he has heard and knows that there is a demand for a statement from him. We will wait and see what happens.

Mr. Goodhew

As the right hon. Gentleman seems incapable of protecting the interests of the House, will he kindly resign?

Sir T. Beamish

These two Bills have been blocked by the Government, and they will continue to be blocked by the Government; is that right?

Mr. Crossman

I do not want to be guilty of tedious repetition. What I have said is that we will inquire into the allegation of the hon. Gentleman.

Earl of Dalkeith

Would the Leader of the House take this matter of N.A.L.G.O. very much more seriously than he has done? Scotland is in a state of near revolt over this and if he does not allow Scottish Members special time for a debate on this matter he will drive Scotland to a state of nationalism.

Mr. Crossman

We have talked on this subject for some time. If it were true that Scotland is in a state of near revolt on this issue, then it would be a grave dereliction of duty on the part of the Opposition Front Bench not to take some of its Supply time to discuss it. There is a great deal of hypocrisy going on about this.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

The hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) mentioned a letter and the Leader of the House gave his interpretation of what was contained in it. This was clearly about to be contested by my hon. and learned Friend. I agree that under the rules he could not put a second question without the permission of the House. Would it be possible for the House to give him that permission so that we can see what the truth is?

Mr. Speaker

It will be possible. I saw no indication that the House dissented from the view that I expressed, that at business time hon. Gentlemen should ask one business question. If it is a question of words, or accuracy between the two hon. Gentlemen—Sir Knox Cunningham.

Sir Knox Cunningham

Is the Leader of the House aware that last week I asked him in this House why the Government had blocked the Bills and he said that he would let me know? He wrote to me giving me the reasons. I have a copy of the letter here now.

Mr. Crossman

If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to impugn my name, he can do so, but we are now dealing with business questions. If I remember rightly, the letter explained in what sense the Government approved and disapproved of the operation of these particular Bills.

Dame Irene Ward

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to assure us that when this controversy has been settled and he has investigated what has been said and what has not been said, he will come before the House so that we can cross-examine him about the result of his findings? May I ask, Mr. Speaker, at what stage are back benchers allowed to ask you for your protection against the Executive? I am fed up with the Executive.

Mr. Speaker

I have never been aware that the hon. Lady needed any protection, even from Mr. Speaker.

Captain W. Elliot

May I refer to the question of a debate on Vietnam? As so many hon. Members opposite have raised important issues about Vietnam, will the Leader of the House reconsider whether we should have a debate? Surely it would give the Government a chance to make a clear and unequivocal statement. The Americans, Australians and New Zealanders, and others, are in Vietnam, fighting for principles which the British Government——

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are getting into an argument. We must not argue at this stage.

Mr. Crossman

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as interested as everyone. In the last resort, in an issue as serious as Vietnam, we must leave it to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to decide whether it helps to have a debate. On balance they would rather not, but if the Opposition wants to insist upon a debate they have their method of doing so.