§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod)Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 18TH MARCH—Supply [11th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Air Votes 1, 2, 7, 9, 11 and Air Supplementary.
Navy Votes 1, 4, 8, 10, 11 and Navy Supplementary.
Army Votes 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11.
The Royal Ordnance Factories Estimate, The War Office Purchasing (Repayment) Service Estimate, and The Army Supplementary.
It may be found to be generally convenient to devote two hours to each of the three Services.
TUESDAY, 19TH MARCH—Supply [12th Allotted Day]: Committee stage of the following Civil Supplementary Estimates:
Class IV, Vote 13—Transport (Shipping and Special Services).
Class IV, Vote 7—Research and Development.
Class I, Vote 3—Office of the First Secretary of State.
At 9.30 p.m. the Questions will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Votes, under Standing Order No. 16.
Motion on the National Coal Board (Valuation) Order.
WEDNESDAY, 20TH MARCH—Supply [13th Allotted Day]: Report stage of the following Civil Supplementary Estimates:
Class V, Vote 7—Freedom from Hunger Campaign.
Class VIII, Vote 16—Grants for the Arts.
Class IX, Vote 4—Houses of Parliament Buildings.
Class III, Vote 7—Prisons, England and Wales.
1531 At 9.30 p.m. the Questions will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Votes, under Standing Order No. 16.
Motion on the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services.
THURSDAY, 21ST MARCH—Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill: Second Reading, which it will be proposed should be taken formally to allow debate on an Opposition Motion on School Building and Teacher Shortage.
Motion on the Housing (Payments for Well-Maintained Houses) Order.
FRIDAY, 22ND MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 25TH MARCH—The proposed business will be: Third Reading of the Weights and Measures Bill.
Motions relating to the Post Office.
Mr. WilsonHas the right hon. Gentleman yet fixed a date for the debate on House of Lords reform? When that debate takes place, is it the Government's intention to inform the House in advance of their attitude to the Committee's Report? Do they intend to table a Motion accepting that Report, or merely a Motion to take note of it? Do they intend to make a statement of their intentions during the debate?
§ Mr. MacleodAssuming that we make progress—I must put in that proviso—I hope that we shall be able to take the debate a fortnight today, on Thursday, 28th March. I should be very glad to discuss the actual form of the debate through the usual channels, but we had intended to put down, perhaps, a Motion to take note of the Report, so that we could hear the views of hon. Members before we gave the Government's view on the matters outstanding. We should then hope to come to the House as quickly as possible after the debate with a statement on our views on the outstanding policy questions.
Mr. WilsonWas it not understood—and surely the Prime Minister dropped hints in this direction, if they meant anything—that the Government intended during the debate, if not in advance of it, to give some idea of the way in which their mind was moving? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it most un- 1532 satisfactory to have a general debate of this kind and then to announce the Government's attitude to the subject afterwards? Since we all want to make progress in this matter, as the Prime Minister said, will not the right hon. Gentleman think about this again and see whether the Government can give some indication of their attitude, at any rate during the debate?
§ Mr. MacleodYes, Sir. Of course I will consider that. As Leader of the House I may open the debate, and I should be glad to consult beforehand as to the line which I might take. If the Leader of the Opposition studies previous business statements he will see that I have answered this question two or three times, and each time I have made it clear that we thought it right not to put forward firm views on policy in advance of the debate and that on this sort of occasion it would be best for us to listen to the views of right hon. and hon. Members before views on policy were formulated. If that is not the wish of the House, I am quite ready to consider the point, but I think that there is a good deal to be said in favour of that sort of approach.
Mr. WilsonI am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman on this issue. It is true that he said that he thought that it would be unwise to give a statement of the Government's intentions in advance of the debate, but he is telling us now that he will not say, even during the debate, what the Government's intentions are. He says that ha will listen to the debate, and then come forward with new proposals. Does not that mean a second debate, or have we misunderstood him? Does he intend, during the course of the debate, to say what the Government are thinking?
§ Mr. MacleodI think that the right hon. Gentleman realises that there are divergent views on the way of handling the debate. I am anxious to do it in the way in which most of the House would prefer. Of course, I will have consultations on this matter, but what I said orginally, I think to the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party—
§ Mr. MacleodPerhaps he is something else.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) put the question to 1533 me originally on the business statement a few weeks ago. I then made it clear—and I feel pretty sure that all the House took it in this sense—that we should listen to the debate without putting either before the debate or in the opening speech what might be called policy decisions, and that then, as soon as possible, we should come back to the House. After all, it is most likely that legislation will be required following the debate. I should have thought that that was the sort of approach which the Leader of the Opposition would find acceptable.
§ Dame Irene WardIs my right hon. Friend aware that what the country would like us—that is, Parliament—to debate is the powers of governors of prisons and those associated with them and whether any alteration is needed in the regulations so that in future people like Thatcher will not be released under the terms under which he was released? That is what the country wants to Know about, much more than House of Lords reform.
§ Mr. SpeakerThis is the time for questions on the business statement.
§ Mr. W. HamiltonDoes the Secretary of State for Scotland intend to make a statement to the House about the capital investment programmes of the nationalized industries, which are to be used to solve the unemployment problem in Scotland? Is he aware that a statement has been made today to the effect that f12 million is to be spent on these industries to combat this problem? This is a highly unsatisfactory way of dealing with the problem. We want these statements to be made in the House, so that we can question the Secretary of State on them.
§ Mr. MacleodI do not think that my right hon. Friend has a statement in contemplation in the period with which we are dealing, but I will put the point to him.
§ Mr. Ronald BellWill the Leader of the House bear in mind, in relation to the Report of the Select Committee on House of Lords Reform, that any change in the composition of either House of Parliament is more a matter for Parliament than for the Executive and that there are many hon. Members who would think it quite 1534 inappropriate if the Executive were to formulate its view before hearing the view of the House of Commons in a debate? Those hon. Members are, therefore, grateful to him for the arrangement which he proposes and hope that he will not change it.
§ Mr. WiggHas the Leader of the House noticed that there is a Motion on the Order Paper in the names of some of my hon. Friends about the journalists who have been committed to prison for contempt of court?
§ [That this House, believing that adequate protection for confidential communications made to journalists in the course of their professional duties is essential to the proper working of Parliamentary democracy, urges Her Majesty's Government to consider recommending the exercise of the Royal prerogative in remitting the sentences imposed on Mr. Foster and Mr. Mulholland.]
§ There is an Amendment thereto, in the names of hon. Members on both sides of the House, which recognises the special position of a free Press in a democracy, but takes the view that there is a balancing factor which requires that that privilege should be exercised with due sense of obligation in regard to public duty?
§ [At end add "and believing that a free Press, based upon high standards of factual integrity and responsibility, is essential to the working of democracy, urges Her Majesty's Government immediately to introduce legislation imposing severe financial penalties on the principal proprietors of newspapers which consistently indulge in adventurous sensationalism with little regard to truth or the public good".]
§ Would the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that he will represent to the Prime Minister that some action should be taken by the Government to preserve our democracy from the ravages of those who exercise their special privileges irresponsibly?
§ Mr. MacleodI am deeply conscious of the serious way in which all hon. Members approach this issue, even though many of them come to different conclusions on it. ft is an issue of the very greatest importance indeed. I do not think that it has particular reference to the business before the House for next week, but I will put the point that the hon. Gentleman asks me to put to my right hon. Friend.
§ Mr. MacCollCan the right hon. Gentleman say when we may expect the next day allotted to consideration of Reports of the Estimates Committee?
§ Mr. MacleodNo, Sir. I cannot give a date for that.
§ Mr. TileyAs we are to discuss school building next Thursday, which is an important topic at present, on which almost every hon. Member will want to speak, is it possible for the debate to be extended at least by one hour?
§ Mr. MacleodI will take note of that question, but I never think that a suspension of one hour, particularly on a Thursday, is very suitable.
§ Mr. ShinwellDoes the right hon. Gentleman think that it is possible for the Radcliffe Report on the Vassal Tribunal to come before the House before Easter? Is he aware of the Motion and Amendment on the Order Paper on this subject, and that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), amongst others, are associated with the Amendment? This matter should be fought out in the House very soon. In view of the likelihood that some new evidence may be submitted to the Attorney-General of a somewhat unexpected nature, affecting one of the persons involved in this trial, is it not desirable that we should have the Report as early as possible and that a debate on the subject should be expedited?
§ Mr. MacleodOn the last point, I will take note of the right hon. Gentleman's last point, which my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has heard.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said a day or so ago that he hoped to receive the Report within the next few weeks. It may well be that it will be before the House, in the sense that it will be published, before we rise for the Easter Recess, but I do not think that it will be possible to debate it before the Recess, in view of the timing of the Budget and other matters about which the right hon. Gentleman knows.
§ Mr. KershawHas the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to Motion No. 90 on the Order Paper in the names of my right hon. Friend the 1536 Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) and others? Is my right hon. Friend aware that today we reached only Question No. 32 to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in spite of the fact that eight hon. Members were not in their places to ask Questions which they had tabled?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the next time the President of the Board of Trade is likely to be reached is when he is second after the Treasury on 9th April and is, therefore, unlikely to be reached? The next time after that is 23rd April. If we do things so slowly, and as there are such long intervals between Ministers becoming available, does it not almost amount to some hon. Members not being permitted to carry out their public duties?
§ [That this House is of opinion that the length of speeches and the number and length of supplementary Questions have increased, are increasing, and ought to be diminished; and most respectfully suggests to Mr. Speaker that his eye might fall less often on those who presume on the privileges of the House or weary it over-much.]
§ Mr. MacleodThere is an opportunity to discuss some of these matters tomorrow, but the length of supplementary questions, which is an essential part of the Motion to which my hon. Friend has referred, is not a matter for me.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanMay I revert to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)? Does the Leader of the House appreciate that there is a difference between the two points about which hon. Members have been anxious arising out of the inquiry? The question of the two journalists is not the same thing at all as the question of the Report of the Tribunal? The Report of the Tribunal is about the Government. The question about the journalists is about the journalists.
In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the date of the Report, and the earliest possible date for discussing it, will not he reconsider the question whether the House ought not to be given an early opportunity to discuss the case of these two men who now 1537 lie in gaol and who, in the opinion of many hon. Members and of many people outside the House—
§ Mr. Dudley WilliamsOn a point of order. I thought that we were discussing next week's business. I cannot see any relevance in this question.
§ Mr. SpeakerI was waiting to see how it developed. I am sure that it is in the interests of the House that hon. Members should bear in mind that on business questions it is neither in order nor desirable to go into the merits.
§ Mr. SilvermanMy question, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, was directly relevant. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] What I am asking for is any early opportunity of debating a question, and that is a matter of business. What I am saying is that many Members of the House would desire an early opportunity of discussing whether these two men should continue to lie in gaol, since, in the opinion of many people in the country, they are there under a complete travesty of justice.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that that is where it goes out of bounds.
§ Mr. DribergFurther to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams), is it not at least arguable that next week's business might have to be altered in view of the new evidence referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), which is of a most sensational nature, concerning statements made by Vassall in prison, and has a direct bearing on the Mulholland case?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. To ask for an opportunity to discuss a subject relates to next week's business. To argue the merits and the reasons for it very soon gets into other than next week's business.
§ Mr. DribergFurther to that point of order. With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that perhaps you misheard what I said. I was suggesting that it might be necessary to ask the Leader of the House whether he would consider changing the business announced for next week.
§ Mr. SpeakerI understand that. I understood it to be in the event of certain 1538 things happening, in which case we could not deal with the matter this day here and now.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanWould it be in order for the Leader of the House to answer the question I raised—whether the Government would provide an early opportunity for the House to discuss that important matter?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt would certainly be in order, but I allowed an opportunity and saw no signs of movement from the Minister.
§ Mr. MacleodIt is difficult to give a clear answer, not knowing the circumstances of what may come forward, to which the hon. Member referred. Of course, I have no knowledge of this. One of the difficulties which the House will recognise is that because of the complications of spring Supply, one has a lot of Supply days coming all together. This means, inevitably, that the whole of the business for the four days I have announced for next week make them Supply days. In particular, the Consolidated Fund Bill, on Second Reading, is a matter on which the Opposition, by tradition, put forward the subject they wish to discuss. If there were a feeling in the House that this should be altered I have no doubt that the Opposition would take notice of that, too. But I do not think that at this stage I can anticipate matters developing in this way.
§ Mr. WoodnuttWill my hon. Friend bear in mind the intolerable size of the rate burden. particularly on the many ratepayers who are living on small fixed incomes? Will he consider giving time to debate Motion No. 32. standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith), and the names of 74 of my hon. Friends and myself?
§ [That this House, conscious of the necessary changes under the rating revaluation of premises due to come into force in April, 1963, believes that the time has now arrived for the rate burden to be spread more fairly amongst all citizens, for the financing of education to be transferred, by stages, to the national Exchequer, whilst retaining local control, and for a full inquiry into possible new methods of raising revenue for local government services.]
1539§ Mr. MacleodNotice has been given of that for a private Members' day, but it is low in the list of priorities and I agree that it is unlikely to be reached. However, I cannot undertake to find Government time for it.
§ Mr. RossWould the Leader of the House look into a problem that has arisen because of the behaviour of the Secretary of State for Scotland regarding the Children and Young Persons Bill? The Bill has already had its Second Reading and is likely to go into Committee next week. It has been reported in the national Press, apart from the Scottish Press, that in response to the Committee, the Secretary of State is to extend Clause 1 of the Bill to Scotland. Since the rights of hon. Members may be infringed by proceeding in this way, apart from the fact that no announcement has been made in the House about it, will the Leader of the House arrange that before the Secretary of State does that the principle of the Clause will be discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee?
§ Mr. MacleodI think that that is some way away from the immediate subject before us, but I will undertake to discuss that point with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. H. WilsonWill the right hon. Gentleman "come clean" with the House about this? A statement has been made by a member of the Cabinet to the effect that there will be this fundamental change after Second Reading without a statement being made in the House? If there is to be a change, should not the House be told about it first? Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that it is right, after Second Reading, after having got the House to accept the principle of the Bill on one basis, that that whole basis should be changed by an Amendment moved in Committee? Will the right hon. Gentleman row say what is to happen so that hon. Members can decide whether they should press him for an announcement next week?
§ Mr. MacleodI have said that I will take the point made and consider it at once; and I mean"at once "—this afternoon—with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. WilsonIn which case will the right hon. Gentleman give an assur- 1540 ance that nothing will happen in Committee or anything be tabled by the Government until the House has had a statement as a result of the inquiries that he is to make?
§ Mr. MacleodThe Bill will not be considered in Committee for some time; but I take the right hon. Member's point into account.
§ Sir C. OsborneOn business for next week, since we are having a spate of Supply days on subjects chosen by the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend use his influence with the Opposition, through the usual channels, in order to have a Supply day used for the discussion of exports, since the complaints understandably made by hon. Members opposite about unemployment will only be resolved if our exports go up?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt may be on business, but it is not in order.
§ Miss BaconFurther to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), is the Leader of the House aware that the Committee has already been chosen, that the Second Reading debate has been held and that none of us who spoke on behalf of the Opposition had been acquainted with this change? Will he see that something is done quickly, otherwise it puts my hon. Friends from Scotland in a rather peculiar position?
§ Mr. MacleodI have undertaken to look at once into this matter, and if it is appropriate that a statement should be made on the Floor of the House before the Committee stage, then, of course, I will arrange for that.
§ Sir C. OsborneWith your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I again raise the point I put to my right hon. Friend?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am sure that the hon. Member understands that it is no duty of the Leader of the House to exercise influence with hon. Members of the Opposition. That is outside his range of duties.
§ Sir C. OsborneBut surely my right hon. Friend could do me the courtesy of a reply, which I have not yet received from him.
§ Mr. SpeakerUnless my recollection is at fault, the Leader of the House was 1541 invited to use his influence with a member of the Opposition in order to secure the use of a given topic for a Supply day.
§ Mr. Dudley WilliamsCan my right hon. Friend say whether it will be in order to discuss the question of exports and its affect on unemployment on the Consolidated Fund Bill next week?
§ Mr. WiggOn a point of order. Is it competent for the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) to try to obtain a Ruling on a point of order from the Leader of the House? Is not that a matter for you, Sir?
§ Mr. SpeakerApparently not, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be sufficiently discreet not to get involved in that. Perhaps we may now proceed.