BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 28 March 1963)

Mr. H. Wilson
May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House 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, 1ST APRIL AND TUESDAY, 2ND APRIL—Remaining stages of the London Government Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 3RD APRIL—As already announced, my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will open his Budget on Wednesday, 3rd April.
1537 The general debate on the Budget Resolutions and the Economic Situation will be continued on Thursday, 4th April and Monday, 8th April, and brought to a conclusion on Tuesday the 9th.
FRIDAY. 5TH APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
The House will wish to know that it is intended to propose that the House should rise for the Easter Adjournment on Thursday, 11th April, until Tuesday, 23rd April.

Mr. H. Wilson
Would the Leader of the House tell us when it is intended to have a debate on the Beeching Report and how many days the Government intend to allocate for that purpose?

§ Mr. Macleod
Obviously, from the business I have announced, after Easter, but I would hope reasonably soon after Easter. Through the usual channels I am sure that we can come to an understanding about the amount of tune to be allotted.

§ Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan
When can we expect a statement from my right hon. Friend the First Secretary about his recent talks with Central African leaders?

§ Mr. Macleod
My right hon. Friend will be making a statement as soon as the talks conclude. If that is tomorrow, as it may well be, the statement would be made in the House if the House is sitting. Otherwise, it will be made as soon as possible.

§ Mr. Grimond
When may we expect a further statement about Chief Enahoro? Further, does the Leader of the House intend to make a statement about any inquiry into the rating system before we rise for Easter?

§ Mr. Macleod
In reply to the first question, as soon as possible. Naturally, there has been an immediate and urgent follow-up of the situation that we discussed the other night.
On the question of rating, as the right hon. Gentleman will probably be able to see on the "tape" by now, I think, the Minister of Housing and Local Government has answered Questions on that point this afternoon.

§ Mr. Webster
Can my right hon. Friend say when we will have a debate on the Report of the Rochdale Committee?

§ Mr. Macleod
No, Sir. I cannot give a precise time for that. It is understood that we will debate it. Clearly, it is not practicable at least before Easter.

§ Miss Herbison
Can the Leader of the House find time for a Bill on intestate succession in Scotland? Is he not aware how strong are the feelings amongst women in Scotland that the Government have failed to honour their pledge in this instance?

§ Mr. Macleod
I have some interest in this matter. I was concerned with a Private Member's Bill on this sort of subject a few years ago. I should like to look into the point that the hon. Lady raises.

§ Mr. Tiley
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is far more important to debate on the Floor of the House the Beeching Report for several days than it is the Committee stage of the Finance Bill? Only this week we had a debate on education, in which it was not possible for one voice from the North to be heard from this side of the House.

§ Mr. Macleod
It is, of course, important to have a debate on the Beeching Report. I will not comment on the point about the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, because, as my hon. Friend knows, we have referred that to a Select Committee, which is studying it at the moment.

Mr. H. Wilson
Did we hear the right hon. Gentleman aright? Did he say that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has answered Questions here today and that they are already on the "tape"? Since no one who has been sitting here has heard or seen the Minister of Housing and Local Government, would the Leader of the House explain what it is, or are these Written Answers which have been put on the "tape" before Oral Questions are even over?

§ Mr. Macleod
There is nothing in the remotest bit unusual about this. These are Questions which have been tabled for Written Answer which my right hon. Friend is answering.

§ Mr. P. Williams
Can my right hon. Friend be a little more forthcoming on the possibility of a debate on the multilateral or multinational nuclear force? The House has been given varying inferences about Government policy on this in the past. Is there, in fact, to be a debate on this issue?

§ Mr. Macleod
There is no prospect of a debate on that very important subject before Easter, but I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said and discuss it with the Lord Privy Seal.

§ Mr. Lipton
On a point of order. It has just been announced that Written Answers have already appeared on the "tape". How is that possible if, as I understand, no hon. Member receives a reply to a Question tabled for Written Answer until some time after 3.30? Would you be good enough, Sir, to investigate this very unusual practice?

§ Mr. Speaker
I will find out whether any problem arises for me. At present, I do not control the speed with which things get on to the "tape".

§ Mr. G. Thomas
In view of the very firm assurances given by the Leader of the Opposition about leaseholds, is the Minister aware that I will not waste my time or his by pressing him any more for a debate on that subject?
But can we be told now when we shall have legislation dealing with teachers' salaries? How long have we to wait before we know when the legislation will be introduced?

§ Mr. Macleod
We will take the teachers' Bill as soon as possible after Easter.
If the House will allow me to respond to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), I have not the slightest idea whether this is or is not on the "tape". What I said was that it would be possible no doubt to read this on the "tape", because, as he knows, they are released in the ordinary way after Questions.

Mr. H. Wilson
That is not what the Leader of the House said at all. He said that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) could have read it on the "tape" by this time. He can look his words up 1540 in HANSARD tomorrow, provided that nobody is sent up to "cook" it first. Will the Leader of the House—

§ Sir H. Butcher
On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in accordance with the best traditions of the House that reflections should be made on servants of the House who are present, but who are unable to deny any of these regrettable accusations?

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not know of whom it was suggested that he had "cooked" something. It certainly was not anything related to the Kitchen Committee.

Mr. H. Wilson
At any rate, that is half-baked. We can see that.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a statement did appear on the television last night that something of importance was to be said on rates by the Minister of Housing and Local Government? If this has been put out to the Press, whether it has reached the "tape" or not—if it has been put out—in view of the widespread interest in this question, could we be told why the Minister of Housing and Local Government did not have the courtesy to come here and make the statement in the House? Since there have been many Questions on the Order Paper for several days, since the matter has been debated, and since the Minister of Housing and Local Government has said that he is not going to hold an inquiry, if he has now reached a fresh decision on this matter why did he not come and make a statement in the House?

§ Mr. Macleod
I am not going to take up the earlier point that the right hon. Gentleman made. I have not the slightest intention of altering what I said in HANSARD. Written Questions Nos. 9, 10 and 11 are down for Written Answer today and, as far as I know, the ordinary procedure has been exactly followed. There has been no change and I have not the slightest intention, naturally, of altering what I said. I do not see that there has been any departure in this from the ordinary procedure for answering Questions.

§ Mr. M. Stewart
The Leader of the House has not explained why the substance of the Minister of Housing and Local Government's reply to these 1541 Written Questions was available on the television last night? Will he apply himself to that point?

§ Mr. Macleod
I have no knowledge of that. But I will look into it if the hon. Member wishes me to.

Sir W. Teeing
As these three Questions which have been mentioned have a strange mark against them which shows that they were tabled only yesterday and could not possibly be answered for two days, in the normal event, if they were ordinarily answered, why is not my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government here? Why cannot he make his statement today?

§ Mr. Macleod
Of course, it is possible to answer all Questions that are put down either in the form of a statement, by leave of the House if necessary, at the end of Question Time, or in answer to Questions that are put, as these have been, on the Order Paper. But I am bound to say that I canot see that in any particular at all there has been a departure from what normally happens.

§ Mr. Grimond
The Leader of the House may not want to refer to this matter, but I certainly do. When I asked a question I was referred to the "tape". Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this is pre-eminently a matter in which the House of Commons has an interest? Instead of referring hon. Members, who ask him whether he will make a statement, to the "tape", does he not think that a statement should be made in the House?

§ Mr. Macleod
Precisely that same argument could apply to every single Question on the Order Paper; all the Oral Questions which are not answered orally and all the Written ones. It would be obviously absurd to have an endless series of statements on all matters—some of which are regarded by those hon. Members who have put them down as being of the greatest importance—at 3.30 p.m.

Mr. H. Wilson
But since all the substance of these answers has been appearing with some regularity in the newspapers during the last two or three days, and on television last night, is it not more important that on a matter as vital as this—and there is a Motion on the Notice Paper in the names of many of his hon. Friends; and this subject has been raised 1542 frequently by hon. Members on both sides of the House—and having debated the matter, instead of it being answered in this way, this was important enough for the Minister himself to have come to the House and to have made a statement?

§ Mr. Macleod
That, of course, must be a matter of judgment [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course it is. It must be a matter of judgment on these matters as to whether or not one should make a statement at 3.30 p.m. We are sometimes criticised for having too many statements. On other occasions we are criticised for not having enough, so it is not a particularly easy balance to strike. I repeat that there is nothing whatever unusual, a Question having been put down, for a reply to be given in this way.

§ Mr. Emery
During next week would my right hon. Friend consider, on the matter of Written Questions, that when the Answers are sent to the hon. Members who have tabled the Questions, at the end of Question Time, they are not available to other hon. Members until they are published in HANSARD the next day'? It is not always satisfactory to rely on the "tape", so would my right hon. Friend consider making all Written Answers available, perhaps in the Library, for all hon. Members who want to see them before HANSARD appears the next day?

§ Mr. Macleod
That is an interesting suggestion, which I would be glad to consider. If the House should think it right to adopt something like that, then perhaps it can be considered by the Select Committee on Procedure. If it would be of help to the House, I would certainly look into it.

§ Mr. M. Stewart
The Leader of the House said that it was a matter of judgment as to when statements should be made. Would he not agree that when a certain course of action has been urged on the Government by the Opposition for three years—and more recently by some hon. Members opposite, and when the Minister has said on several occasions that the Government would not take that course of action—when the Minister decides to change his policy, then surely that is worth a statement?

§ Mr. Macleod
No. I would not accept any such generalisation about answering 1543 Questions or making statements. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that this must remain essentially a matter of judgment as to whether a matter of this importance is of sufficient interest to the whole of the House, or is of sufficient importance as an announcement of Government policy, that it should form the subject of a statement after Question Time. This must remain a matter of judgment. Surely no one will disagree with that.

Mr. H. Wilson
I am sorry to have to press the Leader of the House, but what is not a matter of judgment—and the right hon. Gentleman has obviously got his priorities and ideas of judgment wrong here—is the question of the timing. Will he now tell the House—or if he cannot do so now will he find out and then tell us—at what time today the Answer about rates was given to the Press? It must have been given some time if the right hon. Gentleman knew about it and also knew that it would be on the "tape" before 3.30 p.m. At what time was the Answer given to the hon. Member who asked the Question and at what time will it be made available to the House?

§ Mr. Macleod
I have already said that I will be glad to look into these matters if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition attaches, as he does, particular importance to them.

Mr. Wilson
Of course I do.

§ Dame Irene Ward
Would not my right hon. Friend agree that we could have saved a lot of time had we had a statement after all? Whatever may be on the "tape", or whatever may be given in a Written Answer, I am more interested in knowing whether we will have an opportunity to debate the question of rates when we know what is in the Answer.

§ Mr. Macleod
I agree that we might well have saved time. I must say that quite frankly. But I have not the slightest idea whether or not the matter is on the "tape".

Mr. II. Wilson
It is not.

§ Me. Macleod
The Leader of the Opposition tells me that it is not. I am grateful to him for having told me that; I wish that he had said it earlier. It might have saved a certain amount of misunder- 1544 standing, because some hon. Members are under the impression that I knew about it, although I genuinely did not.
As to my hon. Friend's question about a debate, clearly there is not an early opportunity.

§ Mr. Darling
Can the Leader of the House say whether we are to have a debate on the recently appointed, or to be appointed, Consumer Council? In giving me an answer, would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the unsatisfactory way in which the announcement about this Council was made? Is he aware that on Monday, when we were debating the Weights and Measures Bill, his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was asked to make a statement on this matter. Instead of doing that—and it would have been appropriate for him to have done so at that time—he resorted to this business of giving a Written Answer to a "stooge" Question so that we could not debate the matter then.

§ Mr. Macleod
The hon. Member is giving another illustration of a matter which he thinks is of great importance—and, of course, it is—and is suggesting that another statement might have been made at an appropriate time; perhaps after 3.30 p.m. With respect, this reinforces the point that I was making to the Leader of the Opposition.
As to the rest of his question, I will discuss that with my right hon. Friend, but I cannot see a possibility, certainly in the period with which we are now dealing, of a debate.

§ Mr. Montgomery
When replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward), did my right hon. Friend say that there was "not an early opportunity", or "at an early opportunity"?

§ Mr. Macleod
I said that there was not an early opportunity.

§ Mr. Montgomery
In that case, could we have a debate on this issue soon after Parliament reassembles?

§ Mr. Macleod
We shall have to take it up in the light of all the various claimants—a number of which have already been mentioned; the Beeching Report, the Rochdale Report, and, when we receive it, we shall want to debate 1545 at an early date the Radcliffe Report, and so on. We shall have to consider the different claims in view of the amount of time available to the House.

§ Mrs. Hart
With regard to private Members' business on Friday of next week, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday, at the Kingsway office of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, it was not possible for the public to buy copies of the Private Member's Bill on the employment of women? Is it not advisable that this should be reprinted as soon as possible, so that the public can he kept informed?

§ Mr. Macleod
We will certainly go into this matter and see whether we can make convenient arrangements.

§ Mr. Swingler
In view of the widespread interest in the House and throughout the country on the important subject of rates, and to allay all suspicions of evasiveness, is there any reason why the Minister of Housing and Local Government should not now apply to Mr. Speaker for permisison to make a statement on this subject?

§ Mr. Macleod
I suppose none, except that this matter was the subject of Questions for Written Answer and that in the ordinary way applications for statements to be made arise out of Oral Questions.

§ Mr. Rankin
Will the right hon. Gentleman provide an early day to debate the Motion appearing on today's Notice Paper concerning an amnesty for Greek political prisoners? Would he take note that this Motion is backed by an impressive number of my hon. Friends?

§ Mr. Macleod
I have read the Motion, and studied it with great care as, no doubt, have those who are more directly concerned. Obviously, from the earlier answers I have given, it will appear that there is no immediate opportunity of discussing such a subject.

§ Mr. Pavitt
May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to yet a third point about Written Answers—the Prime Minister's very long written statement on Monday about doctors' and dentists' remuneration? Will he discuss with his right hon. Friends this increasing practice, as evidenced on this occasion? A Question from myself on Thursday last, and a Question from one of my hon. Friends on Tuesday, would have enabled the Prime Minister to make that statement in the House? Will the House have an opportunity to discuss this very important matter?

§ Mr. Macleod
This is the third occasion on which hon. Members have suggested that there should have been an additional statement at 3.30. If all these suggestions were taken up we would not be able to make the progress that I am sure the House wishes to make with its ordinary business. If I may say so, how many or how few statements we should have at 3.30 presents a very considerable dilemma.
On the question of doctors' and dentists' remuneration, I can only note what the hon. Gentleman says, and consider it with the other claims.

§ Mr. M. Foot
In view of what the right hon. Gentleman describes as the normal practice of the Government as to where statements are made, can he by any chance tell us whether he thinks that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement is likely to be delivered in the House?

§ Mr. Ross
I am sorry to deepen the right hon. Gentleman's dilemma, but he will be aware that the statutory authority of the Minister of Transport in Scotland is very limited and that responsibility for roads, and for transport apart from railways, rests on the Secretary of State for Scotland. As there is very considerable alarm in Scotland over yesterday's statement on the Beeching, Report by the Minister of Transport, is it intended to afford an opportunity for the Secretary of State for Scotland to 1547 make a statement in the House on how Scotland will be affected by these proposals? Will he take if from me that we are very much concerned about the coyness of the Secretary of State in the House and his volubility at Press conferences?

§ Mr. Macleod
The hon. Gentleman is adding to the requests for statements at 3.30 p.m. I will discuss—I know that I have said this before, but at least I do it—with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the point raised by the hon. Member.

§ Mr. Fletcher
Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Government propose to find time for a debate on the very important Report of the Royal Commission on the Police?

§ Mr. Macleod
The Government are very anxious that this matter should be discussed as soon as possible, but it is impossible to fix a precise time. As the hon. Gentleman will realise, there are a number of claims on time for discussion of subjects of, perhaps, even more urgent importance. But I very much hope that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the Report. I shall try to find the opportunity.

§ Mr. Lipton
Without saying whether or not a statement on any particular subject should be made at 3.30, will the right hon. Gentleman direct his attention to this very serious and apparently growing practice of Answers to Written Questions appearing on the "tape" or in the Press before the hon. Member who has put down the Question has received the Written Answer? That is what has happened today.

§ Mr. Macleod
Yes, Sir, I will. I thought that a very interesting suggestion was made by one of my hon. Friends, and it may be that we can improve matters for the convenience of all Members. I will certainly look at that suggestion.

§ Mr. Millan
Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we may expect a debate on the McKenzie Committee's Report on Electricity Generation in Scotland?

§ Mr. Macleod
I cannot.