HC Deb 06 February 1967 vol 740 cc1122-31
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce a rearrangement of business for Tuesday and for Wednesday afternoon.

On TUESDAY, 7TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Completion of the Motion on the Ministry of Aviation (Dissolution) Order.

Motions on the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Dissolution) Order, the Hartlepool Order and the Sea Fisheries Order.

On WEDNESDAY, 8TH FEBRUARY—A debate on the Press arising on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill, the Third Reading of which, under Standing Order No. 89 will be formal.

Mr. Heath

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this constant rearrangement of business to which we are being subjected is extremely inconvenient for those right hon. and hon. Members who try to arrange their own affairs according to the debates in which they wish to take part? On this occasion, having to put the Consolidated Fund Bill in Tuesday's business is due to the crass incompetence of himself and the Government Chief Whip, together with the appalling apathy of Government supporters who could not even be bothered to turn up in order to support the most important Bill of the Session before the Budget. As a result, everybody suffers.

Why, in these circumstances, does the right hon. Gentleman persist in this attitude of overloading Tuesday? We now have a fresh Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, on which I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will wish to raise further subjects on the Supplementary Estimates—followed by the Order to dissolve the Ministry of Aviation, to the debate on which the Government have still not replied and are incapable, apparently, of bringing to a conclusion, and then the Order to dissolve the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. How can we possibly expect to take the whole of this business on Tuesday? The right hon. Gentleman has got us into one mess and is now getting us into another.

Mr. Crossman

I must say that the right hon. Gentleman is being slightly ungrateful, since he specifically advised you, Mr. Speaker, that we should not take the Consolidated Fund Bill last Thursday, but should postpone it until this week. Now, when I announce the new date he blames us for the announcement. That may all be good fun, but surely it is not serious.

As to the second point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I will see how we go. The Order dissolving the Ministry of Aviation has, I am gratified to see, aroused a great amount of interest and has shown how suitable it seems to have been for morning sittings. However, we will exclude it for tomorrow morning.

Mr. Lubbock

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever view one may have taken in advance about the merits of morning sittings, it would be wrong to make up one's mind on the practical results on the basis of two? Would the right hon. Gentleman take steps to amend the Sessional Order so as to clarify the rules on the application of the Closure, particularly on those days when exempted business is to be taken in the afternoon?

Mr. Crossman

That is a rather different question from business. But I agree with the hon. Gentleman in what he says about judging the merits of morning sittings. I think that we are going very well in our morning sittings. The only thing that we underestimated was the interest of the Opposition in them.

Mr. Rankin

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if morning sittings are to work it is essential to get the co-operation of the Opposition and that there should not be the misuse of them such as we have had—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot debate the question of morning sittings on a business statement. This is not a general business question time. It concerns only the changed business which the Leader of the House has announced.

Mr. Rankin

I merely suggest that if the morning sittings are to work they must not be abused by the Opposition.

Mr. Crossman

I have no complaint about morning sittings. I am delighted by the excellent attendance of the Opposition.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

If the Ministry of Aviation is, as the right hon. Gentleman says, suitable for morning sittings, why must the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources Order be taken in the middle of the night?

Mr. Crossman

Both these Orders are suitable for both morning and afternoon. While morning sittings are for matters less essential, they can be important. We originally proposed these Orders for the morning, but everyone has shown such keen interest that we have decided to finish one tomorrow and start the next. Things will get on equitably if they go on as they did today.

Mr. Michael Foot

Since one of the purposes of the Consolidated Fund Bill is that back benchers shall sustain the debate, has my right hon. Friend any indication as to whether the Opposition propose to "pot the white" again by calling again for a Count, which caused all the trouble? Can my right hon. Friend also give an indication of when we may advise the Leader of the Opposition—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Chair wants to hear these exchanges.

Mr. Foot

Can my right hon. Friend give some indication of when we may have an opportunity of advising the Leader of the Opposition on how he may assist in sustaining the rights of his own back benchers?

Mr. Crossman

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is rather a business question for Thursday.

Mr. Peyton

Is the Leader of the House aware how much we would wish to congratulate him on his new-found tact in wishing to bury the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources at dead of night?

Mr. Grossman

I would like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his newfound courtesy toward me.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke

Is the Consolidated Fund Bill which we shall discuss tomorrow a new Bill, or is it the old Bill revived?

Mr. Crossman

I have had some experience now in advising the House. It would be wrong for me to advise the House on this. This is a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Woodburn

Further to the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition, is it not clear from the experience of last week that it is impossible to rely upon voluntary co-operation to carry through the business of this House, especially through the night, and is it not necessary now for this House to establish definite fixed rules to stop this nonsense through the night?

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are getting wide of the two announced changes in business.

Mr. Crossman

This is a lengthy question; we might have another debate on procedure soon.

Mr. John Hall

On a point of order. As the Leader of the House was not able to give us any guidance as to whether this was a new Bill or a continuation of the old Bill, can I look to you, Mr. Speaker, to give the House guidance on this point?

Mr. Speaker

The House can always look to Mr. Speaker to give guidance, but not at this moment.

Mr. Winnick

Can the Leader of the House tell us whether he is making any financial arrangements for those hon. Members opposite who come in the morning and obviously lose money by doing so?

Mr. John Hall

Further to my point of order. As I gather you cannot give guidance on this point now, at what point will you be able to give guidance?

Mr. Speaker

When we come to the matter on Order Paper.

Mr. Peter Mills

Will the Leader of the House urge the Minister of Agriculture to make a full statement on the very serious problems concerning foot-and-mouth disease in the north of England, and will he make sure that the Minister does not slip out of—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Leader of the House has made proposals for certain changes in the business for tomorrow and Wednesday. This is not the Thursday business question time.

Sir J. Eden

Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), can we have some information from you as to when you are likely to publish the list of subjects which hon. Members will have given you notice that they wish to raise under the Consolidated Fund Bill? In view of the change of business for tomorrow, there is very little time for hon. Members to know in advance what subjects are likely to be raised. May we know from you whether we are likely to have the subjects to be debated before the rising of the House today?

Mr. Speaker

I cannot assure the hon. Gentleman that he will have the information before the rising of the House. I must consider whether I shall publish a list.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

May I ask the Leader of the House if he would amend two things which he said to the House in the course of the exchanges last week on the Consolidated Fund Bill? The Leader of the House suggested that we might give notice of a Count of the House in future. Would he tell us in what circumstances is it imposed upon us that we—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot debate on the business question for tomorrow and Wednesday the multifarious circumstances under which Counts are asked for.

Mr. Heath

This is an important point, if it is a point of order, because the Leader of the House is giving the impression that it is the responsibility of the Opposition to carry the Government's business on the Consolidated Fund Bill. This has never been the tradition in the history of Parliament. It is entirely the responsibility of the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip to carry the business. They have failed in their responsibility and they must take the blame. It is not a question of potting the white on every possible occasion—we shall pot the red, as we did last week.

Mr. Crossman

I made a statement of business for tomorrow and the next day. I would be delighted to debate the merits of what really went on last week, but this is not the time to do it. I will do it whenever we are given the time to do so.

Mr. Michael Foot

I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition was on a point of order, but I understood that he was. If it is the case, as he states, that on the Consolidated Fund Bill it is solely the responsibility of the Government to sustain the House and that this is the convention of the House, then surely there would be no question of providing facilities for back benchers to know which matters should be discussed? Is it not a fact that it has been the accepted convention of this House over many years that on the Consolidated Fund Bill there shall be arrangements made for back benchers, notifying them when certain matters are to be raised? Surely that would not be the case if this was not a special arrangement for providing time for back benchers? All that some of us have argued is that it was the Opposition's responsibility for curtailing the opportunities for back benchers, and the Leader of the Opposition apparently connives at this.

Mr. Heath

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong, as he knows full well. When he was on this side of the House he argued exactly to the contrary. The fact is that the opportunities for back benchers on the Consolidated Fund Bill are for back benchers on both sides of the House, and it is the Government's responsibility to keep the Bill. It was a responsibility which we always accepted without apology, unlike the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

On a point of order. Is the House aware that on the night in question this House helped—

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Lewis

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must listen. I am not prepared on this business question to have an inquest upon the two Counts which took place.

Sir A. V. Harvey

May I suggest to the Leader of the House that the best way to ensure continuity of business and for the Government to get their business would be for him to consider issuing a three-line Whip to his own side?

Mr. John Hall

On a point of order. I am sorry to press this point of order, which is further to the one that I raised earlier, but the difficulty facing the House because of the impossibility of finding out whether the Bill is a new one or a continuation of the old one is very real. As I understand the situation, if this is a new Bill those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have already spoken can speak again. If it is a continuation of the old one they cannot do so. It would be a great advantage and convenience to all hon. Members if we could be told at this stage whether this Bill is new or old.

Mr. Speaker

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I knew the point that he was raising with me when he raised it originally. I understood all its implications—I am not prepared to rule on it at the moment.

Mr. Clark-Hutchison

With regard to Wednesday's business, the Scottish Housing Bill seems to be knocked out. As the Government's record on house building in Scotland is so bad, when are we to have this Bill, which is very urgent?

Mr. Crossman

It will come. I hope to make a statement on Thursday.

Sir Knox Cunningham

On a point of order. You have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that you were not prepared to state whether you would give a list of subjects for debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. If that be so, is that not altering your former precedent? Could you say why in those circumstances you would not be prepared to make a list available?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman must remember what I said. I said that I am not at this stage prepared to say whether I am prepared to give a list. The making of a list is a courtesy that the Chair sometimes affords to Members.

Mr. Heath

We realise that you have been placed in a very difficult position by the action of the Government, but the position is that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have to decide whether they wish to be here tomorrow afternoon to discuss certain specific subjects. In the past you have been kind enough to tell the House the subjects which you intended to choose. Would it not be possible, in the course of the day, to tell the House which subjects are chosen? Secondly, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will wish to know, if they spoke on the last occasion of the Consolidated Fund Bill, whether they can speak again on this occasion?

Can we ask when you would be prepared to give your Ruling as to whether this is a new Bill, and whether those who have already spoken will be able to speak again? If I may respectfully present it to you, it is in no way your responsibility, and we realise the position in which you find yourself because of the Government's incompetence, but from the point of view of the convenience of the House we would like to know when you would be prepared to give a Ruling.

Mr. Speaker

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting the point so courteously. I have already suggested that I am prepared to rule on this when we come to the Bill before the House.

Mr. Heath

On a point of order. There is an announcement on the tape that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making an important announcement in the House this afternoon about the financing of private housebuilding. May we ask the Leader of the House where the Chancellor of the Exchequer is and when the important announcement will be made?

Mr. Crossman

I think the answer is that it will be a Written Reply.

Sir J. Eden

Further to that point of order. Is it not quite wrong that a Minister of the Crown should seek to make an important statement in public by means of a Written Answer? Apart from anything else, we have morning sittings for just this purpose.

Mr. Speaker

Order. That point must be raised at some time with the Minister concerned when the facts are not in dispute.

Sir J. Eden

Further to that point of order. Surely it is quite wrong, in the first place, that there should be a leak on the tape of this announcement—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have already ruled on the issue which the hon. Gentleman seeks to raise. Raising it again does not alter what I have ruled.