§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart)I intend to propose that the House should adjourn tomorrow, Friday, 25th July, until Monday, 13th October. The necessary Motion will be tabled today and will be taken as first business tomorrow.
On a further matter in which there is wide interest, may I say that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposes to table today Amendments to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill, which will not be proceeded with before the Recess.
§ Mr. HeathWith the Leader of the House kindly say when the business for the first week after the Recess will be announced?
§ Mr. PeartI will do it as soon as possible. I cannot be precise about the date, but I will see that all hon. Members are promptly informed.
§ Mr. Michael FootMay I take it from the Leader of the House that the postponement of the discussion of the Amendments to the Bill made in another place is being made precisely to enable hon. Members to have sufficient time to study my letter in The Times?
§ Mr. GrimondNow that this important matter is to be put off during the Recess, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to take advantage of the delay, since everyone is now convinced about the iniquity of gerrymandering, to see whether it is possible to arrange an all-party conference to decide how it can be got rid of in Northern Ireland?
§ Mr. PeartNorthern Ireland is not concerned in any matter that I am announcing today. I would have thought that the long Recess would enable even the right hon. Gentleman to be cautious about the words that he chooses.
§ Mr. DribergIn view of the fact that more than 20 Questions down for reply by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister were not reached today, and in view of the increasingly educative and encyclopaedic nature of the Prime Minister's replies, will my right hon. Friend consider amending the Standing Order after the Recess so that we can have a little more time with the Prime Minister?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterAs legislation which, among other things, seeks to indemnify the Home Secretary for his breach of his statutory duty under the Act of 1949 is not now to be proceeded with for some months, can the House take it that the right hon. Gentleman will now do his duty under the Statute and lay the necessary Orders?
§ Mr. PeartI know that the right hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority, but I would not say necessarily that his view is right. I think that what I have announced is the right course at this stage.
§ Mr. Frank AllaunMy right hon. Friend will be aware that the other place has made three Amendments to the Housing Bill which are very damaging to the interests of tenants—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman can ask a business Question, but he cannot discuss the merits of anything at the moment.
§ Mr. AllaunThis is strictly business. One of them has been put right, but two have not, and I want to ask my right hon. Friend if there will be an opportunity today or tomorrow to remedy these grave injustices—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. They are on the Order Paper for today, I think.
§ Mr. PeartYou are quite right, Mr. Speaker. They are on the Order Paper, and we will have an opportunity to vote on them.
§ Mr. CostainCan the Leader of the House say whether there will be time for the usual Summer Adjournment debates before the House rises tomorrow?
§ Mr. C. PannellWill my right hon. Friend take it from me that it is the view of most of his colleagues that it is a good idea to put off discussion of the proposed boundary changes to allow the unelected Chamber three months to cool down and come to its senses?
§ Mr. HoggAre we to take it that the Government are having second thoughts about their iniquitous behaviour in this matter—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We cannot debate now what apparently we shall be debating some time ahead. We are on business questions.
§ Mr. EmeryWill the Leader of the House turn his mind to his statement, which has meant the reorganisation of business for today? As we are not taking the Lords Amendments to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No.2) Bill, we find that the Development of Tourism Bill is the first Order of Day. Does he realise that this House did not know yesterday whether their Lordships had or had not put Clause 17 into the Bill—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Discussion of the Lords Amendments to the Development of Tourism Bill will take place at some time during the day. We cannot discuss now the debate which we shall be having then. We are asking business questions.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Emery. A business question.
§ Mr. EmeryThis deals entirely with the business for today. It is because we did not know yesterday what we would be debating, since there was no Lords HANSARD to inform us, how does the right hon. Gentleman expect this House properly to conduct its business on the Development of Toursim Bill today?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. No backchat.
§ Mr. Hector HughesWill my right hon. Friend find time for the completion of the debate on the B.B.C. which was unfinished the other day, with particular reference to my Early Day Motion No. 395 about the Scottish Symphony Orchestra?
[That this House deplores the British Broadcasting Corporation's announcement that it can no longer remain financially responsible for the British Broadcasting Corporation Scottish Symphony Orchestra and hopes that the orchestra will not be disbanded; notes that the Corporation are to consider a proposal from the Scottish Arts Council who are to be congratulated on their initiative in this matter; and calls urgently on both the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Government to give all necessary support and to take all necessary steps to save this distinguished orchestra and to maintain the study and exposition of its splendid work without which Scottish aesthetics and in particular music in Scotland would be significantly impoverished.]
§ Mr. PeartI have noted my hon. and learned Friend's Motion and, as always, I applaud his energy and diligence in this matter. However, there was an opportunity. He must keep pressing Ministers.
§ Mr. MartenIs the tight hon. Gentleman aware of the slightly unsatisfactory way in which tomorrow's business has been handled? Can he say when the subjects for debate on the Adjournment will be announced? Secondly, will the Motion to adjourn be tabled tomorrow morning after Questions at 12 o'clock, and can the debate on it run on until 4 o'clock, thereby keeping out all the debates on the Adjournment?
§ Mr. PeartThe Motion can be taken. It is not an unusual list. There are ample precedents. This has happened before.
§ Mr. RoseMay I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early Day Motion No. 423 relating to the situation in Londonderry, which already has been 2139 signed by 88 hon. Members? In view of the impending Recess, would my right hon. Friend undertake that the Cabinet will keep a firm watch on this very serious situation and, if necessary, report to this House?
[That this House, recognising the highly critical situation in Londonderry and understanding the underlying grievances, calls for full support of the responsible leadership of the Civil Rights Movement in Northern Ireland; urges the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland to take all the steps necessary to secure peace and justice in Northern Ireland; and calls for the following immediate steps: the presence of Home Office observers in Northern Ireland, and tile withdrawal of the Ulster Special Constabulary from Londonderry and its environs.]
§ Mr. PeartI have noted carefully the terms of the Motion. The actual withdrawal of the Special Ulster Constabulary is a matter for the Northern Ireland Government, but I will draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary what my hon. Friend has said.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasWill it be possible to have an early debate or chat on the extemely important recommendations put forward by the House of Commons Services Committee on measures to enable hon. Members to discharge their functions more efficiently?
§ Mr. PeartThis is an important matter. As Chairman of the Services Committee, I am anxious that a statement should be made on this, and there will be opportunities, of course, even tomorrow. There is a question for Written Answer down to me. But I would like to consider this very sympathetically.
§ Mr. WhitakerWill my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services be making a statement on implementing the Seebohm Report, which he promised to do before the long Recess?
§ Sir G. NabarroWill the Leader of the House apply his mind to the Writs for the five by-elections outstanding? Does he propose to issue the Writs to- 2140 morrow? If not, is he aware that carrying them over until 13th October or later will mean, in the case of Newcastle-under-Lyme, for example, disenfranchisement for a period of 9 months, which is surely a Parliamentary record? Why will not he issue the Writs tomorrow to fill those five seats and return Tory hon. Members for them?
§ Mr. PeartThe hon Gentleman's question is one that he has often raised. He knows the answer. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, not for me.
§ Mr. GardnerWill my right hon. Friend explain how it is possible for him to answer Questions about the business for next week when there is none?
§ Sir T. BeamishOn the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill, in order that right hon. and hon. Members may have ample opportunity to study both points of view during the Recess, will the Leader of the House consider following the strange precedent set by the Home Secretary and publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the speech made in another place by the Bishop of South-wark?
§ Mr. PeartIf the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to debate this matter, he should read all the speeches in that debate.
§ Sir B. JannerIn view of the importation of so many dangerous wild animals as pets and the anxiety that has been caused in many parts of the country, will my right hon. Friend take steps to introduce legislation to deal with this matter? Will he particularly keep the matter in mind during the Recess, because of its importance?
§ Mr. PeartMy hon. Friend raises a very important matter which affects a section of the community, but I cannot find time or promise legislation.
§ Mr. SandysThe right hon. Gentleman avoided answering the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) about the by-elections by saying that this was a matter for the Patronage Secretary. But it is a matter of business that the House is entitled to ask whether the 2141 Patronage Secretary intends to move the Writs before the House rises, in the same way as we may ask the Leader of the House whether a Minister intends to introduce a Bill. It is all part of business. In view of the importance of this matter, I do not think—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. If the right hon. Gentleman strays from order, I will call him to it.
§ Mr. SandysI am very sorry if I strayed from order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I was protecting the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. SandysPerhaps I may continue. What I am pressing the Leader of the House to tell us is a very simple matter, and it is a matter of business, as to whether the Patronage Secretary will move the Writ before the House rises.
§ Mr. PeartThe right hon. Gentleman has been a member of an Administration—a distinguished member—and he knows that the Leader of the House never moves it. It is a matter for the Patronage Secretary, who has heard the right hon. Gentleman's views. I do not think that he will do it tomorrow.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We have a lot of business ahead of us.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I must remind the House—and this is the third time this week—that I can take only one point of order at a time.
§ Sir G. NabarroOn a point of order. Would you please give a number of my hon. Friends and myself guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter that has arisen from the controversy of the last few moments? Is it not a fact that Erskine May states that any Member of the House, without notice to Mr. Speaker, may move that a Writ for the holding of a by-election be moved by Mr. Speaker that day?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that I ruled on this question—the hon. Gentleman must have missed it—10 to 14 days ago. It is possible for an hon. Member to do so. 2142 If he does, he must let Mr. Speaker know before he proposes to do so, so that the appropriate form in which the notice is given may be followed. But it is a convention of the House that it is usually moved by Members of the party to which the late Member or the Member who has vacated the seat, belonged. It is as simple as that.
§ Sir G. Nabarrorose —
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman might look up the Ruling. I have ruled very clearly. We are on business questions.
§ Sir G. NabarroFurther to that point of order. You have kindly instructed me, Mr. Speaker, that the Member should give Mr. Speaker notice in the matter. As the House is due to rise tomorrow for more than 10 weeks, would you consider it adequate notice if I gave you notice in writing today that the by-election—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must understand what I have said. He must come to Mr. Speaker. He must consult Mr. Speaker. He must get the notice that he seeks to move in the correct form, and on this Mr. Speaker will advise him.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentlemen who are willing to advise Mr. Speaker must wait. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) can come to Mr. Speaker, who will advise him on the appropriate form. But I would remind him of a convention which has existed for I do not know how many years—I do not know how many centuries. The notice of a vacancy and the appropriate setting in motion of a by-election is given, by a convention of the House long established—and the House likes its conventions and would not wish to break them lightly—[Interruption.] Order. It is very difficult for Mr. Speaker to advise a Member on order if he is being interrupted.
The notice is usually given by Members belonging to the party which was in possession of the seat at the time the vacancy occurred.
§ Sir Harmar NichollsOn a point of order, Your Ruling a fortnight ago to which you referred, Mr. Speaker, related to a time when Parliament is in Session, 2143 but is it not a fact that completely different circumstances arise if we are in Recess, and that according to the rules of the House if we are in Recess it is possible for two Members to apply for the Writ, a Committee of seven will be set up by you, and that Writ will have to be issued? I think that the House would accept that that would be breaking a convention, and we would be reluctant to do it, but if the Government are tardy in issuing writs in the normal, conventional way, they, not we, are risking breaking the conventions.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is on an entirely new point. I had ruled on the point put by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South—[Interruption.] Order. It is very discourteous when Mr. Speaker is ruling on a very serious matter if hon. Members seek to interrupt him.
The point raised by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South had been dealt with by me in answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) some weeks ago. The hon. Member for Peterborough has now raised a new point which is quite an important one. According to the Statute, in times of Recess it is possible for any two hon. Members to instruct Mr. Speaker—not to advise, but to instruct him—to declare a vacancy which has happened.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I wonder whether we might return to business questions.
§ Sir Harmar NichollsIn view of the information you have just confirmed, Mr. Speaker, is it not up to the Government to avoid the breaking of a convention by acting in the conventional way?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is a question for the Government, not for Mr. Speaker. Mr. Lipton—
§ Mr. LiptonMay I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether, in order to save precious time—
§ Sir J. Langford-HoltOn a point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have called the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) might wait to put his point of order.
§ Mr. LiptonMay I ask the Leader of the House whether—
§ Sir J. Langford-HoltOn a point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am compelled to take the point of order, although the hon. Gentleman is interrupting another hon. Member.
§ Sir J. Langford-HoltI apologise for interrupting, but I apprehend that the hon. Gentleman is going on to another topic—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It would still have been possible for the hon. Gentleman to allow the other hon. Member to put his question on another topic, without interrupting him on a point of order.
§ Mr. LiptonIn order to save precious and valuable time of the House, will the Leader of the House look at Motion No. 392, relating to excessive local government expenditure in Lambeth?
[That this House calls upon the Minister of Housing and Local Government to investigate the reasons why the London Borough of Lambeth is spending £2,011 to advertise the post of chief executive officer.]
Will he ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government to accept that Motion without debate and just get on with it?
§ Mr. PeartThe answer is: No, Sir. It is a matter for the local authority. It is open to the district auditor to consider whether expenditure of this kind is reasonable when he conducts his audit. I think that that is satisfactory.
§ Sir J. Langford-HoltOn a point of order. Reverting to the previous subject, I completely accept the existence of the conventions which you have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, but there is one point which should be made quite clear. Am I not right in supposing that Erskine May, contrary to what you have said, states that any hon. Member can give notice of moving a Writ without notice?
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the hon. Member reads Erskine May he will see that it confirms the convention to which I have called the attention of the House.
§ Mr. LubbockWill the Leader of the House request the Home Secretary to 2145 make a statement clarifying the situation that will arise from holding over the Redistribution of Seats Bill until after the Recess? Since the Bill will not become law until after 15th October, when the register is compiled, it would seem that the next register will be compiled on the old basis. It would be helpful if the Home Secretary would make a statement which would help registration officers and those responsible for returns.
§ Mr. PeartI do not think that there is any need for a statement. First things first; let us wait to see what the Amendments are.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We have a lot of business to get through.
§ Dame Irene WardHas the right hon. Gentleman noted my Motion No. 422?
[That in the opinion of this House, the summer school for the young subversives to be held shortly at the London School of Economics should not benefit financially from the overall expenditure by the London School of Economics on rent, rates, lighting, heating, cleaning, domestic labour and other services, and no payment from the Organising Committee should be accepted in lieu thereof.]
May I have an assurance that subversion will not be made a charge on the taxpayer?
§ Mr. PeartI have seen the Motion. The hon. Lady must know that that question is not for me to answer.
§ Mr. SpeakerI hope that we can move on.
§ Mr. BostonWill my right hon. Friend accept that his decision on Redistribution Seats Bill is absolutely right? Since he is being asked to do this sort of thing, will he consider, in answer to business questions, including the independent article by Mr. David Butler in the Sunday Times, which exposes as unfounded the charges of gerrymandering?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Business questions should be real business questions.
§ Mr. Kenneth LewisIn view of the somewhat unusual situation in which we are debating the Adjournment Motion on the last day, can my right hon. Friend say what contingency arrangements he is 2146 making in case the House should vote against the Adjournment, and vote not to go on holiday?