BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 28 October 1965)

§ Mr. Heath
May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

§ The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden)
Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 1ST NOVEMBER—Lords Amendments to the Rent Bill.
TUESDAY, 2ND NOVEMBER—Debate on a Motion to approve the Report of the Select Committee on the Palace of Westminster, until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, Lords Amendments to the Race Relations Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 3RD NOVEMBER—Debate on a Motion to welcome the National Plan, Cmnd. 2764.
Motion on the Control of Office Development (Designation of Areas) Order.
THURSDAY, 4TH NOVEMBER—Debate on a Motion to take note of the Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire, 1964, Cmnd. 2602.
FRIDAY, 5TH NOVEMBER—It is hoped that Prorogation will take place shortly after 11 a.m.
The new Session will be opened on TUESDAY, 9TH NOVEMBER.

§ Mr. Heath
May I ask the Leader of the House about three statements? First, may we assume that when the Prime Minister returns from his all-important mission to Salisbury he will then make a full statement to the House, after which we may consider the desirability of having a debate? Second, before the Secretary of State for Defence makes any statement about orders for procurement of aircraft, and before the decisions are actually taken, may we have opportunity for a full debate? Third, when will the Minister of Transport make a statement about any plans he may have for dealing with traffic in London which, on several days this week, has slowly ground to a standstill?

§ Mr. Bowden
On the first point, with regard to Rhodesia, I shall communicate the right hon. Gentleman's view to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am sure that he will wish to make a statement as early as possible on his return. As regards procurement of aircraft, I cannot say at this stage what the views of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence are likely to be, but, again, I shall convey the right hon. Gentleman's views to him. Equally, I shall do the same on the subject of transport and London traffic, conveying the right hon. Gentleman's observations to my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Freeson
When is it intended to arrange for a debate on the White Paper on Immigration from the Commonwealth?

§ Mr. Bowden
Not this Session.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
With regard to Monday's business, is the Leader of the House aware that the Lords Amendments, eight pages of them, were available to hon. Members only this morning and, on a complicated Bill like this, this puts hon. Members on both sides in some difficulty, particularly in the event of their desiring to exercise their right to put down Amendments to the Lords Amendments? Can the right hon. Gentleman do something to alleviate the very serious trouble which this kind of timetable involves?

§ Mr. Bowden
There is nothing new, not previously discussed, in any one of the Amendments. I appreciate that there are 52 or them, but many are drafting 358 Amendments. There are four or perhaps five matters of great importance here to be discussed, but, there again, the subject matter has been previously discussed. I feel quite sure that the Opposition, in their desire to return security of tenure to so many thousands of people, will help on Monday and see that we get the Bill through.

§ Mr. Frank Allaun
May I take that question with reference to the Rent Bill further? It will be remembered that, thanks to frustration by the Lords at the end of July, this Bill, which should have come into operation in August, has now been delayed for at least four months, which means a serious loss to many tenants. Is it now possible that, with this mass of Amendments to which reference has just been made, there is a serious chance that the Lords will be frustrating the will of the Commons to the extent of putting this off for a further year?

§ Mr. Bowden
I think that we had better take it stage by stage. The first stage is to deal with the Lords Amendments on Monday, and, if we so wish, return them to the other place.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
In view of that question by the hon. Member for Sal-ford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the great majority of the Amendments were put in in another place on the initiative of the Government?

§ Mr. William Yates
Has the Leader of the House noted the great dissatisfaction with the Government's policy in South-West Arabia? Has he received a representation from the Minister to come to the House and express regret at the death of the Speaker of the Federal Parliament in Aden, and, in addition, to give some reason to this House, not treating it with such contempt, why the Constitution was suspended? Further, has the Leader of the House read the Motion which I have tabled, and does not he think that there are elements of real moral cowardice in this matter.

§ Mr. Bowden
Not at all. We debated Southern Arabia in July, before the House rose for the Recess. I agree that there have been some regrettable happenings since. I will convey the hon. Member's views to my right hon. Friend, but I am afraid that there is no opportunity of debating Southern Arabia this side of Prorogation.

§ Mr. Yates
On a point of order. When the Speaker of a Federal Assembly is assassinated, Mr. Speaker, it is surely the custom of the Minister of the Department concerned to come to the House and make a statement of regret—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have heard the point of order far enough. It is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Hamling
In view of last night's critical vote, will my right hon. Friend be bringing fresh proposals on procedure before the House?

§ Mr. Bowden
Personally, I was quite satisfied with last evening's outcome. We shall, no doubt, be having additional proposals from the Select Committee on Procedure for debate—it may be before Christmas.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor
Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to allow a little time next week, perhaps on Wednesday, to debate the very serious position, if not the crisis, which faces the shipbuilding industry? May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the urgency of the problem has been accelerated by recent developments on the Clyde and the North-East Coast? Will he allow a little time to discuss this matter as it appears to us that the Minister responsible for shipping is unwilling to take any action to remedy the situation until the Geddes Report is published?

§ Mr. Bowden
I cannot promise any additional time before Prorogation on Friday of next week, unless, of course, the date of Prorogation is delayed.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
May I ask my right hon. Friend—

§ Sir Harmar Nicholls
On a point of order. I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, 360 at what point the Chancellor of the Exchequer would answer the Question which appeared on the Order Paper in accordance with Standing Order 8(3), which allows a Minister who is absent during the hour of Question Time to come later to answer Questions.

§ Mr. Speaker
The Standing Order allows Ministers to answer Questions after Question Time if a request has been made to the Chair. No such request has been made. No point of order arises.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
Will my right hon. Friend agree to give sympathetic consideration to an early debate on the North-West Report, which has been in our possession for several months?

§ Mr. Bowden
I am well aware of the interest in this Report and the desire to debate it. We had better get into the next Session of Parliament and over the Queen's Speech, when many of these matters can be raised before we decide what other debates we shall have this side of Christmas.

§ Mr. Goodhart
Will the Leader of the House say whether we can expect a statement next week on the progress or lack of progress of the Government's plans to destroy the Territorial Army?

§ Mr. Bowden
Again, we had better await the Queen's Speech and see whether any legislation is forecast.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is not in order for hon. Members to keep standing while another hon. Member is speaking, for the purpose of conveying to the Chair that they want to be called after him.

§ Mr. Lipton
The possibility of altering the time of Prorogation on 5th November having been mentioned, will my right hon. Friend bear this possibility in mind if there are any delaying tactics on Monday in connection with the Rent Bill?

§ Mr. Bowden
I do not anticipate any delaying tactics on Monday. There is a great deal to be done on Monday, but I think that we shall get through it all right.

§ Mr. Ridley
As the Lord President of the Council found time during this Session to debate the White Paper on the National Plan, can he also find time 361 next week to give the House an opportunity of debating the document entitled "Putting Britain Right Ahead"?

§ Mr. Bowden
I have not yet seen that document, but I will read it and then make a decision.

§ Mr. Rankin
Further to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), is the hon. Member—and is the House—aware that the Minister concerned with shipbuilding is taking action immediately in regard to the crisis? He is meeting me tonight at five o'clock and with me will be a member of the Government, who is the Member also for the constituency next to Govan—Craigton—and Govan is principally concerned with the present shipbuilding crisis in Glasgow. The Minister is taking action forthwith.

§ Mr. Speaker
That has nothing to do with the business question.

§ Sir Harmar Nicholls
Even at this late hour, in view of the points made by my right Ion. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), would it not be possible to take Monday's business on Tuesday, and Tuesday's on Monday, to give an extra day for consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Rent Bill?

§ Mr. Bowden
That sort of rearrangement would be possible, but the hon. Member appreciates, I am sure, that it may be necessary to send back some of the Lords Amendments and that the other place should be given an opportunity to consider them before Prorogation.

§ Mr. Ogden
Can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House anticipate on how many occasions the business of the House may be interrupted and suspended to obtain the Royal Assent to very necessary Bills? Will this be kept to the minimum?

§ Mr. Bowden
I cannot anticipate on how many occasions it will be necessary. The more frequently that we get Royal Assent to Government Bills, naturally the happier I am.

§ Sir Ian Orr-Ewing
May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day Motion No. 350, which draws the attention of the House to the proposal by 362 British Railways to close certain commuter railway services from the outlying districts of north-west London into the City?
[That this House, recognising the need to retain and improve all means whereby commuters can travel quickly and conveniently to work in the City of London, urges Her Majesty's Government to direct British Railways to retain and improve their Midland Region Service to and from Luton and passing through Harpenden, St. Albans, Radlett, Elstree and Mill Hill and terminating at Moorgate.]
In view of the traffic congestion, is it not highly undesirable to close any commuter services? Ought we not, therefore, to have an early opportunity of debating this matter?

§ Mr. Bowden
It is not for me to comment on the desirability or otherwise of this proposal. At the moment, however, it is before my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport for a decision.

§ Mr. Peter Thomas
Has the Leader of the House yet had an opportunity to read the valuable Report of the Hughes Parry Committee on the legal status of the Welsh language? As we will have little time next Thursday to debate this Report, do the Government have in mind the provision of time to enable us to debate it?

§ Mr. Bowden
Not in addition to the debate on Thursday of next week, which is the usual debate on Wales. I have not read the Report but I have read a synopsis of it with interest.

§ Mr. William Yates
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I would point out to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. William Yates) that I do not intend to have a second round of business questions. Mr. Bessell.

§ Mr. William Yates
In the event, Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order? You ruled that I could not go any further with my previous point of order to you. Therefore, in view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the Government's reply, both by the Minister and by the First Secretary of State, I desire to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment. I trust that that is in order.

§ Mr. Speaker
This is not an appropriate occasion for the hon. Member to give notice that he seeks to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

§ Mr. Bessell
I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for rising, but I thought that we were still on business questions.

§ Mr. Speaker
Despite the interruption by the hon. Member for The Wrekin, we are on business questions.

§ Mr. Bessell
May I, therefore, ask the Leader of the House whether he has noticed the several early-day Motions on the Order Paper in the names of myself and my hon. Friends on the subject of transport? In view of the question put to him by the Leader of the Opposition, may I ask the Leader of the House whether it is possible for us to have an urgent debate next week on the subject of road transport?

§ Mr. Bowden
I have seen those Motions; many of them were tabled some months ago. It would, of course, be in order to raise this subject during the debate on the Queen's Speech, or perhaps the Opposition, who largely arrange the order of business in the debates on the Queen's Speech, may desire to have a day on it. It is a matter for them.

§ Sir Knox Cunningham
On a point of order. When an honorary Member asks a Question—[Laughter.] When a right hon. or hon. Member asks a Ques 364 tion which is not answered—[Interruption.]—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. and learned Member is entitled to put his question.

§ Sir Knox Cunningham
—because the Minister is not present to answer it, does that Question take precedence over the Questions to be asked orally on the next day on which Questions are asked?

§ Mr. Speaker
I would not answer that question off the cuff, but I should think that in decency it ought to. I will look into the matter.

§ The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. George Brown)
May I say that, having said that we very much regretted the incident, we will do anything we can to ensure that that sort of arrangement is made?