BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

HC Deb 09 July 1964 vol 698 cc628-43

Mr. H. Wilson

May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business of the House for next week, and on what day next week the Home Secretary will make his statement on the de Courcy affair?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd)

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

MONDAY, 13TH JULY—Debate on Accommodation.

TUESDAY, 14TH JULY—Private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.

Afterwards, a debate on Northern Ireland. Motion on the Summer Time Order.

WEDNESDAY, 15TH JULY—Second Reading of the Shipping Contracts and Commercial Documents Bill, and of the British North America Bill.

Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Resale Prices Bill.

Motions on the White Fish and Herring Subsidies Schemes and Order, and on the Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation.

THURSDAY, 16TH JULY—Supply [23rd Allotted Day]: Committee.

Debate on Problems of the North-East until seven o'clock, and afterwards on London Housing.

FRIDAY, 17TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Shipping Contracts and Commercial Documents Bill, of the Spray Irrigation (Scotland) Bill [Lords], and of the British North America Bill.

MONDAY, 20TH JULY—The proposed business will be: Supply [24th Allotted Day]: Committee.

Mr. Wilson

Since we have such a wealth of tremendously important legislation next week, will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister whether he will take the opportunity of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference to discuss with the Prime Minister of Canada whether it would possible to make new arrangements so that the time of this House is not taken up by legislating on British North American affairs, for example, having to give one of the most senior Commonwealth countries authority to establish contributory pensions? Could this matter be discussed with the Prime Minister of Canada while he is here?

Secondly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that, on the last four Thursdays, we have raised with him the question of a statement from the Minister of Aviation about the VC 10s and, week after week, for four weeks running, we have been put off. Now that not only the Minister's intentions but Cabinet decisions, everything that the Minister has said in the Cabinet and out of the Cabinet, and everything else has leaked into almost every newspaper, when can the House of Commons be told what someone seems to be willing to impart to all the Press?

Mr. Lloyd

On the first question the right hon. Gentleman asks, I think that we were both present at the time when that matter was raised informally. In fact, it has not taken very much of the time of the House on previous occasions, although I agree that it is, perhaps, a matter which should be discussed.

On the right hon. Gentleman's second question, I hope very much that it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to make this statement next week.

Sir H. Linstead

My right hon. and learned Friend will, no doubt, have been on the Order Paper the Motion signed by hon. Members on both sides asking for the appointment of a Select Committee of the House to inquire into the future organisation and development of the Library. Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what possibility there is of the House being able to express an opinion on the Motion?

[This this House is of the opinion that a reference and research library of the highest quality is essential to Members in the performance of their parliamentary duties; that the functions of the Library should be redefined, with particular reference to the provision of research and statistical services, the qualifications and experience of the specialist staff required and to the means of assuring to the staff a career which will attract and retain highly qualified men and women; that the method of ensuring that the Library under the direction of Mr. Speaker is responsive to the needs and wishes of the House might also usefully be reexamined and that for these reasons it is desirable that the House should appoint at an early date a Select Committee to inquire into these and all other relative considerations and to report to the House the measures necessary to secure such changes as may be thought desirable]

Mr. Lloyd

It is not for me to rule on what would be in order in the debate next Monday, but I should have thought that the question of the Library, its accommodation and possible extension, could be raised.

As regards the purport of the Motion itself, I think that the course suggested by my hon. Friend and others who signed it would be a wise one for the House to take.

Mr. Woodburn

For the convenience of hon. Members, could the Leader of the House say when the Session is to end, when this Parliament is to end, and when the General Election will be held?

Mr. Lloyd

The date of the election has a limit fixed by Statute. The possible date for the Summer Recess depends upon the progress we make with the business of the House.

Mr. Hastings

Reverting to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, will my right hon. and learned Friend do his best to elucidate what was meant by senior and junior Commonwealth countries?

Mr. Speaker

That does not arise on business.

Mr. Swingler

Has the Leader of the House seen the Motion in my name and the names of several of my hon. Friends about the establishment of a tribunal of inquiry into the premature disclosure of information about negotiations with Spain? Is he aware that the Prime Minister will be answering a Question on this subject, although he attempted to "pass the buck" to the Minister of Defence, as we see from today's Order Paper? Does he realise that the Prime Minister may decide to take over this Motion if the Government take the reasonable course and agree that there should be a thorough inquiry into how and why this premature disclosure took place? Will the Leader of the House, therefore, make preliminary arrangements for a debate on the Motion?

[That it is expedient to establish a tribunal for inquiring into a definte matter of urgent public importance, viz., the premature disclosure of information on or about 8th June concerning negotiations with the Government of Spain.]

Mr. Lloyd

The hon. Gentleman had better await the answer to the Question. I think that it would be helpful if he would send in any evidence which he has about it.

Mr. Ronald Bell

Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there are at least some hon. Members who do not share the view put just now by the Leader of the Opposition about the trifling claim on our time made by the British North America Act, and who would be very sorry to see any change in this traditional and courteous constitutional connection between Canada and this country?

Mr. Bellenger

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has referred to the apparent leakage of information regarding the VC10s and B.O.A.C. Yesterday, the Minister of Aviation was strongly pressed to give an answer on this question, and he said that he would make a statement at an early date. Will the Leader of the House investigate the sources of this leak because, if we are to have this business of Ministers refusing to give information to the House and then the information appearing in our evening newspapers, the House will be brought into contempt?

Mr. Lloyd

I shall see that what the right hon. Gentleman says is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. N. Pannell

Now that the Commonwealth Immigrants Act has been in operation for just over two years, could my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate on this most important matter before the Houses rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Lloyd

We could not find time next week.

Mr. Lawson

Is the Leader of the House seeking to use his authority to punish Scottish Opposition Members by insisting upon taking the Committee, Report and Third Reading stages of the Spray Irrigation (Scotland) Bill on Friday? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Scottish Members are among the most faithful attenders in the House, that they look after their business very assiduously and that they normally have business in their constituencies on a Friday? Will he have this matter looked into with a view to taking the Committee and remaining stages of the Bill on one of the other days during the week?

Mr. Lloyd

I have no desire whatever to punish Scottish Members, but I must ask them to help a little next Friday. There is quite a lot of business to do, and I thought that the Bill was generally welcomed.

The Earl of Dalkeith

As there is not likely to be much Parliamentary time left to us before the General Election, and the party which hopes that it has a claim to form the alternative Government changes its mind so frequently on the subject of defence, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider allotting a certain amount of time each week during the period remaining to us so that we may keep abreast of the latest changes in the thinking of right hon. and hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Lloyd

I shall bear my noble Friend's suggestion in mind.

Mrs. Butler

Since the order of Questions makes it impossible for many Ministers to answer important Questions orally before the end of the Session, will the Government make available half a day for Questions so that each Minister could answer orally in turn for, say, 15 minutes, or, alternatively, will they consider extending Question Time in the last week before the Recess for 15 minutes or half an hour so that there would be additional time for Questions to be answered on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Lloyd

I have some sympathy with what the hon. Lady says, though I myself think that much the best solution to the problem of not getting through enough Questions would be to curtail the length of supplementary questions.

Her suggestion for half a day or for a prolonged Question Time, say a quarter of an hour, is one which would require further consideration and, of course, discussion through the usual channels.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

Will my right hon. and learned Friend find a way for the House to discuss the Motion which has been signed by at least 50 of my hon. Friends concerning the grievances of the North British Locomotive Company's shareholders, who include two constituents of mine?

[That this House is of the opinion that, having regard to the fact that the Chairman of North British Locomotive Company was (as a result of loan arrangements) in October 1959 a Government nominee when he stated that the assets of the Company were sufficient to repay the preference capital and leave £375,592 for the equity shareholdings and that at subsequent meetings in 1960 and 1961 the Government nominee Chairman gave an optimistic impression of the Company's prospects causing new investors to come in, the Government is under a moral obligation to compensate the stockholders following the decision in April 1962 by the Government Chairman to liquidate the Company so that the Government recovered their investment while the shareholders lost over £1,000,000; and that it was unjust for the Government to appropriate the tax credits which would otherwise have been available for distribution among the shareholders who recovered nothing in the liquidation.]

Mr. Lloyd

I do not think that I can promise any Government time for consideration of that Motion, but I will examine the possibility.

Sir B. Janner

Will the Leader of the House give fresh consideration to the matter raised by me last week, when I pointed out that 106 hon. Members, including myself, had put a Motion on the Order Paper designed to see that the victims of Nazi persecution who had not been able to submit their claims up to October, 1953, shall have an opportunity of submitting them to the Federal German authorities now? Will he give the House an opportunity to debate that Motion, in view of the very serious nature of the position and the fact that people who should be entitled to compensation, are dying, coupled with the fact that a final statute is to be passed by the Federal German Government in the near future on these matters?

[That this House, noting the final amending law in respect of restitution and compensation to the victims of the Nazis is now under consideration by the Federal German Parliament, expresses the hope that provision will be made for the inclusion on equal terms of entitlement to compensation of the thousands of victims who through no fault of their own and by the application of arbitrary time limits for claims are excluded under the present law, and is encouraged in this hope by the fact that such inclusion and more liberal grants of compensation generally would not constitute a significant burden on the continued thriving economy of West Germany.]

Mr. Lloyd

The hon. Gentleman had a word with me about this matter and that has enabled me to make some inquiries. I understand that the new Federal German legislation contains provision for a hardship fund designed to cover the people in the category to whom he refers. I do not think that it would be altogether appropriate for us to debate German domestic legislation, but I will see that the views of the hon. Member are brought to the attention of those in authority.

Mr. W. Yates

Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen the Motion on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell):

[That this House, in view of the continued presence of large numbers of Egyptian forces in the Yemen, in contravention of the Security Council resolution of 11th June, 1963, and of the increasing threat to international security and to British life and other interests in the Middle East, urges Her Majesty's Government to take effective measures to secure the withdrawal of Egyptian invasion forces.]

and the Motion standing in my name:

[That this House, realising the need to promote good relations in Aden for joint security between the Services and the people of this country with the inhabitants of South-West Arabia, now invites the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to provide the evidence and his statement of accusations of bribery reported at column 217 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 7th July, 1964, that the Sultan of Fadhli, by offer of bribes tried to induce other delegates to break up the conference, and further requests him to state the source of the funds for the alleged bribe, or withdraw his accusation and imputations by innuendo against another unspecified State.]

as well as the White Paper on the Conference on South-West Arabia?

Does he realise that people are beginning to wonder whether all our troubles in the Middle East are solely due to the policies of President Nasser? In view of reports about arms deals by Her Majesty's Government with Royalists in the Yemen, does he not think this a subject matter which the House should debate very shortly?

Mr. Lloyd

I should have thought that my hon. Friend would wish to put down a Question on that subject.

Mr. Wigg

As the Leader of the House told my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) that he should supply him with evidence about the leak on the Spanish arms business, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the OFFICIAL REPORT for 15th June, in which the Foreign Secretary told the House that there had been a disclosure of information? Is he further aware that the Daily Express, which splashed the original story all over its front page, the next day hid away on page 10 a palpable untruth, when it blamed the Americans for the disclosure?

Is it not obvious that, for reasons best known to themselves, Her Majesty's Government have sought to hide behind their own incompetence? Is it not time, in the public interest—not in the interest of the Tory Party—that the facts were established on the basis of evidence before a judge of the High Court?

Mr. Lloyd

I do not think that that is a question which arises on the business for next week. I have already suggested to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) that he should await the Answer of the Prime Minister to his Question.

Mr. Robert Cooke

With regard to Monday's business, will my right hon. and learned Friend draw the attention of hon. Members to certain architectural drawings which have just been displayed in the Library and which may go some way to explaining the Accommodation Committee's proposals?

Mr. Lloyd

I hope that hon. Members present will have taken note of what my hon. Friend says and that other hon. Members will read his remarks in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hector Hughes

On Thursday's business, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, rather vaguely, that the debate would be about the North-East, did he mean the north-east of Scotland? Is he aware that a debate on that subject is long overdue?

Mr. Lloyd

If there is any allegation of vagueness, that is a matter the hon. and learned Member must raise with his right hon. and hon. Friends, because the debate will take place on an Opposition day. They chose the subject.

Mr. Fell

In view of my right hon. and learned Friend's implied statement in answer to an earlier question—that unless we finish our business we might be kept here during the Summer Recess—will he give an assurance that we will not be kept here during the Recess to discuss the Burton upon Trent Order, 1964?

Mr. Lloyd

I do not think that even I could keep my hon. Friend here. The question was when the Recess would begin.

Mr. H. Hynd

It has been stated that the Minister of Aviation would make a statement on the issue we all have in mind concerning him—the VC 10s—but since there was a prior statement to the effect that we would have a full debate on the Report of the Select Committee, when will that debate take place?

Mr. Lloyd

Not next week, but there are opportunities for a debate, of which the hon. Member will be aware.

Mr. M. Foot

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking with Ministers about the statements they are to make next week, will he arrange for us to have at least one direct leak to this House and also arrange for us to have one apology from the Home Secretary?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Ross

Concerning Friday's business and the Spray Irrigation (Scotland) Bill, will the Leader of the House assure us that the Secretary of State, who so far has not found it possible or convenient to attend a single Committee discussion on any Scottish Bill, will be in his place next Friday?

Mr. Lloyd

I will certainly see that my right hon. Friend's attention is drawn to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. A. Lewis

Further to the remarks that have been made about the various leaks that have occurred, and which we are continually getting, is the Leader of the House aware that when one talks to Lobby correspondents one finds that they can invariably give information about things 24 hours before details of them appear in the Press, or are given on the Floor of the House?

Is he aware that we have been told that there is to be an announcement made about an increase in old-age pensions? Will he give an assurance that neither next week nor at any time during this Session any such statement will be made—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that is, unless he is prepared to confirm that an announcement is to be made to the effect that retirement pensions are to be increased?

Mr. Lloyd

The answer I can give to the hon. Gentleman is that, so far as I am aware, not next week.

Mr. Lipton

Has the Leader of the House taken note of the pledge which was made by the Home Secretary last night, and the effect that it will probably have on the forthcoming business of the House? Is he aware that the Home Secretary said that he would do his best to introduce an amending Regulation in this Parliament to deal with the problem of police widows' compensation? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now convert that into a specific Government undertaking: that an amending Regulation will be placed before the House before the end of this Session?

Mr. Lloyd

No, Sir. I do not think that I have anything to add to what my right hon. Friend said yesterday. I heard what he said, as did the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who thought that it was satisfactory. I hope that we shall get the preliminary steps. Certain steps must be taken first to seek agreement, and if that agreement is reached we shall certainly find time for that Regulation.

Mr. H. Wilson

We have been told repeatedly that there will be a Measure relating to Malta before the House rises for the Summer Recess. Since the House will probably feel that no such Measure should be introduced until there is general agreement among the various communities and parties in Malta about the fairness of elections, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now say whether it is still his intention to introduce legislation relating to Malta before the end of this month?

Mr. Lloyd

I have nothing to add to what has already been said.

Mr. Stonehouse

Will there be any time restriction on the debate on Northern Ireland on Tuesday?

Mr. Lloyd

The normal restriction under the Standing Order.

Mr. Swingler

Before we have a debate on the tribunal of inquiry into the leak to the Daily Express in relation to the Spanish negotiations, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ask the Foreign Secretary what was the basis of his assertion on 15th June that there was a premature disclosure, when the Foreign Secretary said to the House—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We must not, in our own interests, get so far away from the business as that, else business questions become interminable.

Mr. Swingler

The Leader of the House challenged me, Mr. Speaker, to produce evidence of why I was asking him for a debate on this subject. The Motion to which I was referring is based on the fact that on 15th June the Foreign Sectary asserted in the House that there had been a premature disclosure about the Spanish negotiations. Surely it is fair for me to ask the Leader of the House to consult with his colleague who is vitally concerned in these negotiations and to ask him for the evidence that is the basis for saying that we require a tribunal to inquire into this matter.

Mr. Speaker

From the point of view of business I should have thought that a quotation of what the Foreign Secretary has said was sufficient. However, the point has been made.

Mr. Wigg

Since we can confidently look forward to the right hon. and learned Gentleman finding time in the life of this Parliament for an inquiry and the setting up of a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, can we in the meantime dismiss any further claims by the Government about the sale of ships to Spain on the ground that what happened was this—

Mr. Speaker

Order. My plea that we should confine ourselves to business does not exclude any hon. Member or myself. We must, in the common interest, keep to business.

Mr. Wigg

We asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman earlier whether he would find time, if not next week, for a debate. He has given us some encouragement. We have helped him by supplying him with the evidence. I note the lack of enthusiasm on his part and that of other hon. Members opposite for a debate. May we take it that what is happening is that the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker

No. What the hon. Gentleman is talking about is not, in my view, business.

Mr. Wigg rose—

Mr. Speaker

No.

Mr. A. Lewis

As the Leader of the House said that there will not be a statement next week on the question of increased pensions, may we have one as soon as possible and an assurance from him that it will not be leaked to the Press before it is made on the Floor of the House? If a statement cannot be made next week, will the right hon. and learned gentleman try to ensure that it is made the week after, so that we may have a chance to debate it before the House rises?

Mr. Lloyd

I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Wigg

Will the Leader of the House find time next week, in the interest, I understand, of hon. Members opposite, for a debate on the sale of ships to Spain? Let us have the truth. All that I want to do is to ensure that the House and the public understand what happened. I believe—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked for a debate. That is the totality of what I regard as coming within business.

Mr. Lloyd

In view of what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) says, he should persuade his right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] May I reply? The hon. Gentleman would be wise to try to persuade his right hon. Friend to choose this topic for a Supply Day.

Mr. Wigg

This is another example of evasion. I want the facts. My hon. Friends and myself put on the Order Paper a Motion asking for an inquiry.

Mr. Speaker

This is quite out of order and will, in the end, be most inconvenient for the House, because, by and large, we like to discuss business. However, if this occasion is abused we shall have to stop allowing such freedom. It is not in the interests of the House.

Mr. Lipton

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the somewhat incomplete reply which he gave to my question on the subject of police widows' compensation will be received with some dissatisfaction by—

Mr. Speaker

That is another instance of what should not be done on business.

Mr. Swingler

Is it not clear to the Leader of the House that the Government should find time next week to explain their position and all this talk about premature disclosure by the Foreign Secretary to the House? Have the Government no responsibility to explain what has happened, or do they merely want to make electioneering propaganda out of this?

Mr. Lloyd

What I said was that there was no time for such a debate next week.

Mr. Pavitt

In view of the fact that there remain on the Order Paper a number of Private Members' Bills from hon. Members on both sides of the House which Members think important, and the fact that Government legislation does not seem to be all that pressing, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider finding time to discuss some of these Bills in the last week before the Recess instead of having the usual day of Adjournment debates?

Mr. Lloyd

I am not sure what would be the repercussions of that suggestion, but I will certainly consider it.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

No. I wish to bring business questions to an end.

Mr. M. Foot

On the question of Spain, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is a Motion on the Order Paper, signed by many of his hon. Friends? Can he explain why none of them has requested him to find time for a debate on the subject, and can—

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is an absurdity. I wish to draw hon. Members' attention to this. It is slightly difficult for the Chair to control this matter because, out of courtesy and duty, it has to listen to what the hon. Member concerned is seeking to say before putting a stop to the question. Therefore, some endeavour is required by hon. Members, in addition to myself, to see that these occasions are not abused, and I expect help in the matter.

Mr. Foot

I do not know whether you, Mr. Speaker, were suggesting that I was abusing the procedures of the House in putting that question.

Mr. Speaker

I did not do that. I am explaining to the hon. Gentleman, if it be necessary, that it can be no part of the duty of the Leader of the House to explain why he has not received an application for a debate from a given Member. Unless I misheard him, that was what the hon. Member was asking.

Mr. Foot

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for indicating that you were not saying that I was abusing the procedures of the House. I should have thought it perfectly proper for an hon. Member to ask the Leader of the House whether he was aware that a Motion had been tabled by many of his hon. Friends on the matter which we were discussing and why he had not received representations for a debate in the House on that Motion. I should have thought, with great respect, that nothing could have been more in order that that. The questions on Spain could have been greatly abbreviated if the Leader of the House had been prepared to give direct answers at the beginning. So many questions have been put to him because he refused to answer in the first place.

Mr. Speaker

Do not let us get into dispute or confusion. If I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, I freely apologise to him. I thought that he was asking the Leader of the House why it was that his hon. Friends whose names are to the Motion had not made application to him for a debate. That was clearly wrong.

Mr. A. Lewis

On Tuesday's business, as it affects only Northern Ireland, which is just a part of Great Britain, whereas the question of Spain affects the whole of Great Britain—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I will not hear any more on that topic.

Mr. Lewis rose—

Mr. Speaker

No. I will hear no more.

Mr. Lewis

On a point of order. I was called by you, Mr. Speaker, to ask a question on next week's business. I said that Tuesday's business was to do with Northern Ireland, and I was going on to ask whether that business could be switched. Surely that would be in order. I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether he can switch Tuesday's business and whether, in its place, we could have a debate on something more important. Surely if you call me, Mr. Speaker, as you did, I should be allowed to put that question.

Mr. Speaker

When I heard what the hon. Member was urging, it amounted to a further request for a debate about the Spanish business. In my view, we have had enough questions about that.

Mr. Callaghan

On a point of order. Is there not a very well known precedent when the late Mr. T. P. O'Connor used the name "Uganda" whenever he meant "Ireland"? On the basis of that precedent, would it not be a good idea next week for hon. Members to use "Ireland" whenever they mean "Spain"?

Mr. Speaker

That is bordering on the hypothetical. We must get on.