HC Deb 01 March 1962 vol 654 cc1541-56
Mr. Gaitskell

May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will announce the business for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod)

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

MONDAY, 5TH MARCH, and TUESDAY, 6TH MARCH—Debate on Defence, on the Government Motion inviting the House to approve the White Paper (Command No. 1639).

WEDNESDAY, 7TH MARCH—Consideration of a Timetable Motion for the Transport Bill, and the Housing (Scotland) Bill.

THURSDAY, 8TH MARCH—Supply [7th Allotted Day]: Army Estimates 1962–63, will be considered in Committee on Vote A.

FRIDAY, 9TH MARCH—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY, 12TH MARCH—The proposed business will be: Supply [8th Allotted Day]: Air Estimates 1962–63, consideration in Committee of Vote A.

It may be convenient for the House to know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget on MONDAY, 9TH APRIL.

Mr. Gaitskell

Why has the right hon. Gentleman decided to apply the Guillotine to these two further Bills? Is he aware that the Transport Bill, for example, is an extremely complicated Measure and that to have reached, as I understand the Committee has done, Clause 13 in twenty sittings is not bad progress, particularly as progress, under whatever Government or Opposition, has always been slow on the early Clauses? Are we now to understand that whenever Standing Committees make less progress than the Government think they would like, we are to have the Guillotine imposed?

Mr. Macleod

That is a very good précis of the opening speech for Wednesday's debate, when we shall be discussing these matters. As for the Transport Bill, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have studied—and if not, I recommend him to do so—the guillotine Motion on the Transport Bill in 1947. He will find that the Motion then introduced was a good deal more strict than the Motion which is now proposed. There have been 21 sittings of the Committee on the Transport Bill and 11 sittings of the Committee on the Housing (Scotland) Bill, and I do not believe that anybody who has sat on either of those two Committees is very surprised at the announcement which I have made.

Mr Smithers

On the business next week, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is likely to be able to find time for a Motion in my name and the names of many hon. Members on the underground storage of gas?

[That this House, in view of the considerations involved, legal, constitutional, economic, technical and strategic, and of considerations of public safety and amenities, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to set up an independent inquiry into the desirability, practicability and implications of the underground storage of gas in Great Britain; and is of opinion that pending the report of such an inquiry the Gas (Underground Storage) (Chilcomb) Bill, 1961, should be withdrawn.]

Mr. Macleod

Complex and important issues are involved in this and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power is announcing today that he has decided to make a full examination of the general problem and to consider the procedures which should be followed in future. The Gas Council is issuing a statement this afternoon to say that after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power it has decided to withdraw the Bill.

Mr. Smithers

On a point of order. This afternoon, at 4.30, Mr. Speaker, you will hold a Ballot on notices to raise matters on the Adjournment, and my name appears in it. In view of the satisfactory announcement which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has just made, may I ask you to withdraw my name from that Ballot?

Mr. Speaker

I am grateful to the hon. Member for generously giving me the opportunity to exclude the hon. Member in favour of others.

Mr. T. Fraser

Will the Leader of the House say why he intends to take up the time of the House to consider a Motion to limit the time which Scottish Members may spend on the Housing (Scotland) Bill in Committee? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the examination of the Bill by the Committee, local authorities in all parts of Scotland, and associations of local authorities, are making renewed representations against the Bill? Is that why the Secretary of State for Scotland has prevailed upon the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to limit discussions?

Mr. Macleod

No, Sir, of course not. Although, naturally, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) is better informed on matters of opinion expressed in Scotland than I can be, I, too, have seen expressions of opinion about the progress on the Bill in Committee which would not wholeheartedly agree with those of the hon. Member.

Dame Irene Ward

In view of the Prime Minister's statement about retired officers' pensions and widows' pensions being matters for Parliament, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether I shall be able to raise the subject in next week's debate on the Army Estimates?

Mr. G. Brown

No; the hon. Lady will be guillotined.

Mr. Macleod

It is proposed, in accordance with what has become the usual practice over recent years, to suspend the rule for two hours on Thursday, and this will apply to the other Service Estimates in due course. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that what matters can be raised is for the Chair to decide.

Mr. Grimond

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, in making a plea for more progress in the Scottish Standing Committee, made a promise, or threat, that he has many more interesting Bills which he wants to bring before that Committee? Can we be informed on Wednesday what these Bills are, so that we may know our fate?

Mr. Macleod

I have not seen, but I will study, that observation by my hon. Friend.

Sir A. V. Harvey

Has my right hon. Friend seen a Motion on the Order Paper in my name and the names of nearly 40 hon. Members on both sides of the House dealing with the plight of widows of members of the Armed Forces? If he is not able to arrange a day for a debate, will my right hon. Friend "have a go" at the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Is he aware that some of these ladies, some of them very old, are living on National Assistance and that it is time something was done about it?

[That this House, recognising the hardship suffered by retired officers, pensioned other ranks and widows of the armed services, especially those who are old, whose retired pay and pensions cannot be debated under Pensions (Increase) Bills and bear no relation to current awards, urges Her Majesty's Government immediately to improve the pensions of widows bereaved before 4th November, 1958, and to examine the conditions peculiar to all armed service pensioners, and, as soon as economic circumstances permit, to introduce special provisions to improve their retired pay and pensions.]

Mr. Macleod

There is, of course, a link between that Motion and the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Dr. King) on public service pensioners, because it has been the practice that when increases are awarded to Service pensioners, at the same time legislation makes improvements for other public services.

[That this House, recognising the hardships of public service pensioners and especially of older public service pensioners, whose pensions bear no relation to similar pensions now obtaining in the public service, urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce, as soon as economic circumstances permit, a new Pensions (Increase) Bill to raise the incomes of such pensioners.]

I cannot give an undertaking that time will be provided to discuss this matter, but I will discuss the Motion not only with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but with other Ministers as well.

Mr. Strauss

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Transport Bill contains a great deal of contentious and complicated matters, which will have great consequences for the nation and all those who work in the transport industry, and that discussion of these matters, therefore, should not be curtailed or prevented? Is he further aware that progress would have been greater if the Minister of Transport had accepted at least a few of our Amendments? May I ask whether the guillotine Motion will contain a direction to the Minister of Transport to attend the Committee at least on some occasions?

Mr. Macleod

I cannot accept the strictures applied to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and I cannot see why the arguments which the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) put forward against an Allocation of Time Motion on the Transport Bill were not equally valid against the Transport Bill, which was larger and more complex, which was introduced by the Socialist Government.

Mr. W. Yates

In view of what occurred on Tuesday last, may I ask my right hon. Friend, first, whether he will give time in due course to debate the Motion in my name on the procedure on Private Notice Questions?

[That this House considers that any honourable Member, having obtained leave of Mr. Speaker by 12 noon should have the right to convert one question down for oral answer on the Order Paper into one of Private Notice, provided that by so doing he does not anticipate the question of any other honourable Member already on the Order Paper, and that any rule to the contrary should be laid aside.]

Secondly, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the Motion on the Order Paper on Central Africa and ask that in view of Sir Roy Welensky's statements in this country, he should bear in mind that many of us have friends and relatives in Southern Rhodesia and that we are not altogether happy about some of these extraordinary statements? Should we not have a debate on the Federation before further action is taken by the Government?

Mr. Macleod

I have noted the Motion on Private Notice Questions, but I cannot believe that the House would welcome the enormous extension of time, which, of course, would come out of the ordinary day, that would be involved in the widening of the rules about Private Notice Questions.

As for Northern Rhodesia and the Federation, I replied yesterday that we could discuss this matter in the ordinary way. There will be Orders in Council, although they are not the ordinary Orders which need an affirmative Resolution of the House, and I should have thought, in view of the plea which came from both sides of the House yesterday, to reflect on the proposals and move forward to the elections, that there was something to be said for not having an immediate discussion on this matter.

Mr. Gaitskell

Nevertheless, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, although these Orders in Council are not subject to either the negative or affirmative Resolution procedure, it is most desirable that we should have a full day's debate on the Northern Rhodesia constitutional proposals? Although I am not asking for one in the very immediate future, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that there will be such a debate before Easter?

Mr. Macleod

The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is right that the Orders are made under the Prerogative and do not require affirmative or negative Resolutions. As for a debate and the timing of it, what I said yesterday stands. We will discuss that through the usual channels.

Mr. S. Silverman

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has had any discussions since last week with the usual channels, or any unusual channels, about finding a suitable occasion on which the House could consider the recent conduct of the Attorney-General? Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the Answers which the Attorney-General has given, which disclose a situation the absurdity of which is almost equal to its injustice?

Mr. Macleod

I have, of course, noted the Questions which have been put on the Order Paper. This matter was exhaustively dealt with by the Home Secretary and myself at the time of the business statement, and I have nothing to add.

Mr. M. Stewart

On the Housing (Scotland) Bill, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he recollects that we had a comparable English Bill last Session and that although we gave the Bill the protracted discussion which it deserved, a guillotine Motion was not considered necessary and there was no idea of introducing it at this comparable stage in Committee? Is the introduction of the Guillotine an example of discrimination against Scotland, or does it mean that the Secretary of State for Scotland is more inept at handling proceedings in Committe than are his English colleagues?

Mr. Macleod

Neither.

Mr. Ross

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider that answer, because we have never yet seen the Secretary of State for Scotland at this Committee. As it is only a week since the Committee was persuaded that it should sit on Tuesday afternoons in order to have more time in which to give the Bill the searching examination it merits, how can the right hon. Gentleman justify this change of attitude?

Can the right hon. Gentleman also tell us how the business will be conducted next Wednesday? Will there be two separate debates? At what stage will that absentee landlord, the Secretary of State for Scotland, read his brief?

Mr. Macleod

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will take part in Wednesday's debate. As far as the form of the debate is concerned, it has become—I do not like to use the term "standard practice", for that is the last thing one would want to see—

Mr. G. Brown

It has under this Government.

Mr. Macleod

The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) knows the precedents well, as I do. The normal procedure is that when there is a double Allocation of Time Motion the debate covers both Bills.

Sir C. Osborne

Can my right hon Friend offer any hope of finding time to discuss the pay pause before the Chancellor's Budget statement, in view of the extraordinary support given to it by today's announcement that the staff of Transport House have been refused the increase they demanded because the Labour Party says that it cannot afford it? Since that attitude is the basis of the Chancellor's policy, could we not discuss it now with the Labour Party's help?

Mr. Callaghan

Before the Leader of the House replies to the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), will he also take into account that, if the offer that the Government care to make to the railwaymen and other public servants is as good as the offer made in other directions, there will not be much complaint from public servants?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that we are getting rather far from next week's business.

Mr. C. Pannell

Can the Leader of the House say what is delaying the setting up of the joint Committee of the Lords and Commons to consider the renunciation of peerages? Has the right hon. Gentleman run into difficulty on his side of the House? Or is the delay because of second thoughts that Lord Hailsham may really consider that he sees the road back?

Mr. Macleod

No, Sir. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has used a form of shorthand. The considerations of the joint Committee will go a good deal wider than the problems of renunciation, big as they are. I said last week that I would hope that, in two or three weeks' time, we will have an opportunity of discussing this and that I would then hope to move to set up a Select Committee.

Mr. Oram

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Nevada nuclear tests will have taken place before the debate on the Defence White Paper?

Mr. Emrys Hughes

As several days are to be devoted to the Army, Navy and Air Force Estimates, can the Leader of the House say when are we to have a debate on the protection of the civil population? Is he aware that we have not had a civil defence debate for many years, and that there is exceedingly great interest in the country in the Government's proposal to disperse part of the civil population without knowing where they are to be dispersed to?

Mr. Macleod

Yes, Sir. This is the time of the year when we debate defence and the different Service Estimates. Civil defence, being part of defence itself, is bound to come, if hon. Members so wish, into the two-day defence debate next week.

Mr. Warbey

Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us why the Pipe-lines Bill is being taken first in another place? The Bill raises the whole issue of private or public ownership in public utilities. In view of its constitutional importance, why is it not being taken here first?

Mr. Macleod

It is going through another place first purely because of the time factor. At this time of the year, as I have mentioned already in another connection, it is convenient for the Bill to start its course in another place. All the matters mentioned by the hon. Gentleman will be in order on Second Reading and other stages in this House.

Mr. Fernyhough

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he is becoming too guillotine-minded? There is a growing practice of limiting back benchers' debating time. On Thursday, for instance, we shall discuss Army Estimates totalling£524 million. Before the Government get that Supply, all hon. Members who want to take part in the debate should have the opportunity to do so. If there is to be an extension of only two hours, they may not be able to do so.

Mr. Macleod

The extension of two hours for these debates on the Estimates has become almost standard practice for many years past—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] For a considerable time, anyway, and it has been found generally convenient for Vote A debates.

Mr. Manuel

Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea of the intensely contentious nature of the Housing (Scotland) Bill? Is he aware that it is intended to filch power from the Scottish local authorities? Does he think that it is right, or serving the cause of democracy, to apply a guillotine which will not allow us to scrutinise the Bill as we should?

Mr. Speaker

Order. In the interest of the House in general I think that we will have to leave the merits of that kind of proposal to the occasion when the Motion is offered to the House.

Mr. Manuel

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do I take it you are dressing me down in some way? I asked a question about the Guillotine and how it would apply to the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I was perfectly justified in doing so. I have heard such questions asked dozens of times.

Mr. Speaker

I was not seeking to reprove the hon. Gentleman. I was thinking that we had already had a number of questions about the advisability or appropriateness of applying the Guillotine to these two Bills and I thought that perhaps now it had reached the stage when the House might think it better to leave the arguments on the merits, as it were, to the occasion when we debate the Motion. I meant nothing more than that. I spoke in the interest of the time of the House.

Mr. Callaghan

Is the Leader of the House considering making a statement next week on the serious statement made by Mr. Kenneth Kaunda, in which he alleges that Sir Roy Welensky has a plan to arrest the Governor of Northern Rhodesia? In view of the statements made by Sir Roy Welensky since he arrived in London, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this matter should be inquired into and cleared up, and a very early statement made to the House, in fairness to Mr. Kaunda, to Sir Roy Welensky, and to everybody else concerned?

Mr. Macleod

I have seen a good deal of comment in the last day or two, but I have not seen the statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers. But he has now drawn it to my attention and I, in turn, will draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary.

Mr. Grey

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Motion, standing in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, suggesting that Question Time should be extended by half an hour? In view of the fact that hon. Members find great difficulty in getting their Questions answered orally, will the right hon. Gentleman find time to debate that Motion?

[That this House, bearing in mind the increased number of questions to Ministers, and the lack of opportunity for them to be answered orally, is of the opinion that it should meet thirty minutes earlier, thus giving one and a half hours' question time.]

Mr. Macleod

I would like to consider that and find out whether there is a general view in the House about it. One of the difficulties about meeting half an hour earlier is that Standing Committees go on until one o'clock, or a little afterwards, as do many other meetings. This would leave very little time to meet the request contained in the Motion.

Mr. T. Fraser

Will the right hon Gentleman confirm that the Gas Council's Gas (Underground Storage) (Chilcomb) Bill, 1961, has been withdrawn under very great pressure from back benchers opposite? As many hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to discuss this proposition of the Gas Council—a nationalised industry—to bring the country into step with many other countries, will he afford us an opportunity for an early debate?

Mr. Macleod

It may well be that that would be appropriate on a day devoted to debate on a nationalised industry. The Gas Council is issuing a statement this afternoon about the withdrawal of the Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power is given a Written Answer about it in the House today. When the Bill was first brought forward there was—indeed, there still is—a prima facie case, as the hon. Gentleman knows, on economic grounds for the Measure, but the matter is a great deal more complicated, perhaps, than was thought then.

Mr. Rankin

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that some weeks ago I asked him who was responsible for the Toothill Report and he replied that the Government were considering that Report? Is he aware that since then the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary for Science have referred to its recommendations, but that the Secretary of State for Scotland has kept quiet all the time? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me which Minister will assume responsibility for this Report and answer at the Dispatch Box in the event of my being lucky in securing an Adjournment debate on the subject next week?

Mr. Macleod

Subject to correction, I would have thought that the reply to that Adjournment debate would probably come from the Scottish Office. But, as the hon. Member knows—and this, of course, is the whole merit of the Toothill Report—many Ministeries are concerned, so it is not easy to pigeon-hole responsibility. Nor should it be done so far as Scotland is concerned in these matters.

Mr. Rankin

In view of that reply, instead of consigning it to an Adjournment debate, can we have a day to deal with this Report?

Mr. Macleod

The hon. Member has secured his Adjournment debate—

Mr. Rankin

Not yet.

Mr. Macleod

Then perhaps he is reinforcing his case, in which case he is doing it very efficiently. I dare say that that will be the first airing of the matter.

Sir B. Janner

Can the Leader of the House say whether he has forgotten that there is an Albemarle Report? Is it not time that we debated it? Why have we not debated it so far?

Mr. Macleod

Of course I have not forgotten the Albemarle Report. The Departments concerned have been working very hard on this matter. But, as I told the hon. Member before, I cannot see a prospect of an early debate on it.

Mr. M. Foot

Would the Leader of the House again carefully consider the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and some others for a discussion on the operation of the Official Secrets Act? Is he aware that there is very widespread concern about the matter?

Mr. Speaker

The present information, which may be inaccurate, is that an appeal is now lodged in that case. On the whole, I think that it would perhaps be better that we should not now proceed to discuss it.

Mr. Foot

On that point of order. Newspapers, including the Daily Telegraph this morning, have contained widespread comment about the gross misuse of the Official Secrets Act which arises not only from this particular case, but from a series of cases. Therefore, I would have thought that I was in order in asking the Leader of the House whether he would consider the question of a debate about the operation of the Official Secrets Act, not merely concerning the case in which there is an appeal, but the whole operation of the Act.

I would have thought that that was a perfectly proper request. I hope that the Leader of the House will take it very seriously, whether or not he has received a request from the official Opposition Front Bench, because there are many people who think that it is a shocking state of affairs that such an Act should be used in such a fashion.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) is quite in order in asking to have a debate on that topic, but he is not in order in commenting in the process on the merits of the procedures adopted in that case. That is my view, in view of the appeal now started.

Mr. Foot

All I was saying, Sir—and I would have thought, with great respect, that it was in order—was that there was widespread comment about the operation of the Official Secrets Act. Of course, it arises from a recent application of it, but I was trying to urge on the right hon. Gentleman that even though the Opposition Front Bench might not have thought it advisable, for some reason or other, to press for a debate on the matter, it was open to the rest of us to press for a debate on the general grounds, not only in this case, but in the interests of the State, as questions are being raised in newspapers all over the country which suggest that the Attorney-General has wrongly used his powers. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider it?

Mr. Speaker

This is a quite mistaken use of the business question. The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to ask for a debate, but he need not do all that.

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to what may have been overlooked, namely, that three times this week, in answer to Questions, the Attorney-General assured the House that the prosecution in the case which you have in mind was not a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act? Therefore, my hon. Friend's pressure for a debate about the Official Secrets Act could have no bearing whatever on the case now proceeding in the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Speaker

I do not accept that statement. My recollection of the substance of the matter was that this was a charge of conspiracy to commit offences, those offences being offences under the Official Secrets Act. That is why I regard the matter as involving our rule.

Mr. Macleod

I appreciate that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) is going wider than the issue of a particular case My information, Mr. Speaker, is the same as yours, although I have not been able to confirm it. On the wider issue, I will, of course, take account of representations made by all hon. Members for time for a debate. But at this stage I do not want—indeed, I would not think it right—to go beyond what has already been said by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself

Mr. C. Pannell

On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, are you correct in what you have said about there being an appeal? Speaking from memory, it is my impression than an appeal has not been lodged. It had not been lodged last night.

Mr. Speaker

I can do no more than act on the information which I have, and which I received at about 2.15, which was that five out of the six persons involved had instituted appeal proceedings. I hope that I am not wrongly informed, but that is my belief.

Mrs. Hart

Further to that point of order. Is there not a difficulty here in that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) during this week has received Written Answers from the Attorney-General clearly indicating that the prosecution, although involving incitement to commit offences which would have come under the Official Secrets Act if they had been committed, nevertheless did not involve the Official Secrets Act? In view of that, how can the matter be sub judice while an appeal is being considered?

Mr. Speaker

I thought that I dealt with that point and indicated that in my view it was undesirable to discuss the merits now.

Mr. Thorpe

May I press the Leader of the House further on the question of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C.) about the Motion on House of Lords reform? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many hon. Members who are most anxious to give him time to debate the Motion which stands in his own name, and that while we recognise that he has been very self-effacing in suppressing his own interests in this matter, in view of the generous facilities which we would like to afford him, can he assure us that the matter really will be debated during the next two or three weeks and that there will not be any undue delay?

Mr. Macleod

Yes, Sir. "Two or three weeks" is an elastic term, but I meant what I said. Let us try to make it. One can never be certain, because all sorts of things can happen to upset the business of the House, but I am reasonably confident that we can debate the matter within two or three weeks. It is certainly my intention that we should.

Mr. S. Silverman

Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to clarify an answer he gave a little time ago to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) about the time for a debate on civil defence? Are we to infer from his answer that no special day for debating it is in contemplation because of the opportunity that there might be to discuss it in the general debate on defence?

Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that it is now several weeks since he expressed a contrary opinion in answer to a question by me? He then thought that a special day for civil defence would be desirable in view of the length of time and the changing circumstances since the last one. Will he bear in mind that while we have a general debate on defence, we also have separate debates on the Army, on the Navy, and on the Air Force, and that being so, would not it be appropriate to have one on civil defence, too?

Mr. Macleod

I should like to look up the precise words of my answer to the hon. Gentleman. He has given a somewhat free paraphrase of it. As regards the first part of his question, which was fairly put, that is my view of the position.

Mr. Ross

Has the Leader of the House seen the Motion in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who proposes, on the Order for Second Reading of Licensing (Scotland) Bill [Lords] being read, to move, "That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee"? Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this will come up, and whether this is in any way related to the Guillotine on housing? As one Tory back bencher said, we want to get rid of housing to talk about public houses in Scotland.

Mr. Macleod

The answer is "No" to both parts of the question. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when it will go to the Scottish Grand Committee, and it is not related to the guillotine Motion.