HC Deb 09 May 1963 vol 677 cc674-9
Mr. H. Wilson

As I am in my place, may I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the business of the House for next week?

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

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

MONDAY, 13TH MAY—Supply [17th Allotted Day]: Committee.

Debate on Civil Aviation, which will arise on the appropriate Votes.

Motions on the National Insurance (Mariners) Amendment Regulations, and the (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment and Consolidation Order.

TUESDAY, 14TH MAY—Finance Bill: Committee stage, which will be continued on WEDNESDAY, 15TH MAY, and THURSDAY, 16TH MAY.

FRIDAY, 17TH MAY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY, 20TH MAY—The proposed business will be: Supply [18th Allotted Day]: Committee.

Debate on Consumer Protection.

Mr. Wilson

Would the right hon. Gentleman clear up a point arising from an answer which he gave last week to business questions, an answer which has caused a little confusion and some quite unnecessary and, in my view, illegitimate speculation about what the right hon. Gentleman meant? Will he make it clear that it is the Government's intention that House of Lords reform legislation should be introduced and carried through before the General Election, whenever that may be, in order that those concerned, the constituency parties of all parties, and others, can make their necessary arrangements?

Mr. Macleod

Yes, certainly. I am bound to say that if the right hon. Gentleman studies my words carefully—

Mr. Wilson

I did,

Mr. Macleod

Perhaps others did not—he will find that this is exactly what I did say. Of course, it is understood. I said that the only question which was in any doubt was whether the Parliamentary timetable would allow us to pass it in this Session, but it is unquestioned that it will be passed, assuming, of course, that Parliament supports us, in time for it to be operating at the General Election.

Mr. Walker

Has my right hon. Friend received any intimation from the Opposition about whether they intend to devote any of the time available to them to a debate on the Annual Price Review?

Mr. Macleod

No, Sir. I have dealt with this question in one or two previous discussions. It may be right or wrong, but it has not been the custom of the House to debate the Annual Price Review—it has happened only twice in the last 11 years and on those occasions it took place on Supply days.

Mr. Grimond

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the debate on the Vassall Tribunal the Prime Minister suggested that there should be a standing tribunal on security leaks and also possibly a committee of Privy Councillors. Is it intended to make a further statement on this matter, and is it planned to have a further debate on security in general and, if not, how is the matter now left?

Mr. Macleod

A further statement will be made to the House when appropriate. I should have thought that the next stage would be for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to have discussions with the Leader of the Opposition and with the Leader of the Liberal Party on the suggestion that he put forward.

Mr. Eden

In view of the importance to British exports of military orders from South Africa, and in view of the extreme bias shown by last Monday's B.B.C. "Panorama" programme against my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), will my right hon. Friend give time for an early debate on the conflicting and damaging statements of the Opposition on this subject?

Mr. Macleod

I have followed these matters with some care, including the transcript of the programme to which my hon. Friend refers. He has made his point, and I obviously could not undertake to find Government time to discuss it.

Mr. H. Wilson

Since there have not been conflicting statements on the part of the Opposition—[Interruption.]—this has been absolutely clearly stated and I stand by every word I have said on this question—will the right hon. Gentleman explain to his hon. Friend that if full employment in the aircraft industry depends on shipping the arms of oppression to South Africa, after twelve years of Conservative Government, it is time for a change of Government.

Mr. Speaker

I follow the argument, but there are difficulties on business questions about asking the Leader of the House to give information to his hon. Friends.

Mr. Bowles

Has the Leader of the House seen a Motion on the Order Paper signed by more than 50 Members of all parlies and asking for an early debate? The article complained of contained serious allegations against the Cabinet and, if they were true, against you, Mr. Speaker, and I do not believe them for a moment. I ask for an early debate, because this matter brooks no delay.

[That this House strongly condemns the action of the Daily Express newspaper in publishing on 1st May an article gravely derogatory to the position of Mr. Speaker.]

Mr. Macleod

Of course, I have studied that Motion and I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice that he would raise this matter with me. Mr. Speaker has ruled that there is no prima facie case of breach of Privilege. The: Motion which the hon. Member has tabled, with a good deal of support from the House, is critical not of the Chair but of a newspaper. In those circumstances my first inclination is to say that it would probably not be right, as it does not come into the category of a Motion reflecting on the Chair, to find special time for it.

Mr. H. Wilson

Would it not remove a certain amount of anxiety and save some Parliamentary time if, in view of this report, the Government made it quite plan that they accept the traditional position which you, Mr. Speaker, have always accepted—that Mr. Speaker is the servant of the House and that if he goes abroad at any time, he goes with the agreement of the House and that he cannot be used in any sense by the Government to improve relations with any country? Will not the right hon. Gentleman clear up this whole matter once and for all by saying that the Government accept that position and that whatever you might do with the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, has nothing to do with the Government and that the Government certainly do not intend to ask Mr. Speaker to travel abroad as part of the machinery of good will which the Government no doubt want to estabish with other countries?

Mr. Macleod

I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition and, of course, I accept that fully, as do we all. The position of Mr. Speaker is entirely different in these matters and he is the servant of the House. I think that it was the article's suggestion that he might not be that some hon. Members found offensive. The doctrine has been clearly stated by the Leader of the Opposition and I fully subscribe to it.

Sir C. Osborne

Will my right hon. Friend clear up one point raised by the Leader of the Opposition about legislation for the reform of the House of Lords? My right hon. Friend said that legislation would go through in this Parliament, if not in this Session. Does that mean that the General Election will not take place until the next Parliament?

Mr. Macleod

No. It means that if the legislative programme allows and if Parliament supports us, we will take this Bill in this Session. In any event, whether it is taken in this Session or in the next, there is a firm pledge that it will be operating by the General Election. It follows from that, of course—and perhaps this is the point which I can make absolutely clear if there is any doubt about it—that if there were an election this autumn, the Bill would have to be passed by Parliament, if it supported us, before then.

Mr. Short

Has the Leader of the House noted that for some time in this and previous Sessions I have been trying to secure the Second Reading of the Public Service Vehicles (Travel Concessions) Act 1955 (Amendment) Bill? Has he noticed that for week after week this Bill has been blocked by one of his own colleagues, thereby depriving more than two million old and blind and disabled people of retaining travel concessions which they have enjoyed for many years? In view of the urgency and humanity of this Bill, could not the Government now find time for a Second Reading so that people who genuinely object to it may have the opportunity to stand up and be counted?

Mr. Macleod

I understand the hon. Member's feelings. He will realise that hon. Members on both sides of the House have often found themselves—and find themselves in this Session—in the same position. It is only on the rarest occasions, although it sometimes happens, that it is right for a Government to promote over the heads of the Bills of other hon. Members one particular Bill and give it Government time. I am afraid that I could not give that undertaking to the hon. Member.

Mr. H. Wilson

I am sorry to get up again, but this is a very important Bill. Is the Leader of the House aware that the Government created a precedent in respect of this Bill? This Bill was a Private Member's Bill in the 1954–55 Session, and it looked like dying because of the date of the election. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government then provided Government time for the original Bill to go through, provided it related only to those bus routes on which these buses were in operation in November, 1954? As we are nine years after that date, and in view of the increased number of bus routes and the new housing estates which have been built since then, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the precedent created on that occasion and find Government time for this most important Bill?

Mr. Macleod

I shall study the precedent, but the Leader of the Opposition will recognise that there are other Bills, for example, two on law and order by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), to which great interest attaches on both side of the House, and it is difficult to select one Bill out of so many, but I shall look at the point to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport

Arising out of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden), and pending a debate on this matter, in view of the political bias of the programme referred to, can my right hon. Friend inform me whether this programme will now be regarded as a party political broadcast?

Mr. Healey

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform his hon. and gallant Friend that political bias may often appear inherent in a programme when the Government's case is so bad as to be totally untenable, as in this case?

Mr. Speaker

Even at business question time there really is a difficulty about trying to induce the Leader of the House to give information to hon. Members behind him.