BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 2 March 1967)

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

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman)
Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 6TH MARCH—In the morning—
Double Taxation Relief Orders relating to Canada, Trinidad and Tobago and Singapore, and the Central Banks (Income Tax Schedule C Exemption) Order.
In the afternoon—
Supply [12th allotted day]: Army Estimates, 1967–68, Vote A.
TUESDAY, 7TH MARCH—Second Reading of the Leasehold Reform Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 8TH MARCH—In the morning—
Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme, and the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth (Solent Forts) Order.
In the afternoon—
Remaining stages of the Housing Subsidies Bill.
THURSDAY, 9TH MARCH—Second Reading of the Shipbuilding Industry Bill.
FRIDAY, 10TH MARCH—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 13TH MARCH—In the morning the proposed business is:
Remaining stages of the Teachers' Superannuation Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.
704 Parking Places (Transfer of Functions) Order and the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations.
In the afternoon—
Private Members' Motions until 7 o'clock.
Afterwards, opposed Private Business.

§ Mr. Heath
The Leader of the House will recall that last Thursday we had a discussion across the Table about the need for a debate on decimalisation before the Government introduced legislation. The right hon. Gentleman recognised the importance of this subject for the House as a whole and, when we offered to provide half a day if the Government would do the same, I understood him to accept our offer, although he did not wish to commit himself to take the Whips off.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he would discuss the timing through the usual channels. The Government have now published their Bill without having had that discussion through the usual channels about the holding of a debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Is not this a rather discourteous way of proceeding and will not the right hon. Gentleman still take this matter seriously? May we have a debate before the Second Reading of the Bill so that the Government can take the view of the House into account?

§ Mr. Crossman
I appreciate the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman about this subject and would like to explain to him what has happened. I said that I would discuss the matter through the usual channels to see whether it would be possible to fit in a first debate on the White Paper before the House came to the Second Reading debate of the Bill. We will be holding that Second Reading debate before Easter and I just did not see how it would be possible for us to have two debates on decimal currency—to have one now and another in 10 days' time. So we decided to have a full debate on Second Reading before the Easter Recess.

§ Mr. Heath
Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is real concern on the part of all hon. Members over this matter, that this concern is not limited to one side, and that we wished to have a debate before the Bill was introduced so that the Government could take the 705 view of the House as a whole into account? In view of all the indications, in the Press and elsewhere, of a very hard movement of public opinion away from the Government's proposals in this matter, and over to the alternative, ought not the Government still to have a debate of this issue before we debate the Bill so that they have a chance to change their policy?

§ Mr. Crossman
I made it perfectly clear when we were discussing business last week. The words I used were: The Government's decision has been already announced, and I can now say that legislation is expected in the not too far distant future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1967; Vol. 741, c. 1963.] The only thing the House has to decide, therefore, is whether we are to have two debates, one on the White Paper, and then, a week later, another on the Second Reading of the Bill. I should have thought, in view of the pressure of business, that one day's debate on the issue, now that the Government's decision has been announced and we have made up our minds, is enough.

§ Mr. Mapp
In view of the disastrous flow of imported cotton textiles into this country—indeed, in January of this year the Portuguese flow was ten times as large as the whole of that flow in 1965 and four times as large as the whole of the flow in 1966—may I press my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to provide time for a debate on the cotton textile industry in the near future?

§ Mr. Crossman
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me notice that he intended to put that to me. I appreciate that hon. Members from Lancashire, particularly, are deeply concerned about this. I think that we must try if we can to find time, but we cannot possibly do it before the Easter Recess.

§ Mr. Lubbock
Does the Leader of the House recall that as long ago as 8th December he told me, in answer to a question about a debate on decimal currency, that he could not find time for it before Christmas and was unlikely to find time for it in the first week after the reassembly? Did not that imply that the Government were prepared to find time for a debate on decimal currency before the introduction of the Bill? Has the 706 right hon. Gentleman noted Motion No. 319, signed by nearly 50 Members on both sides of the House and calling for a free vote on this issue?

§ Mr. Crossman
I have noticed that Motion. It was made clear in the White Paper that the Government had made a decision of policy. I explained once again to the House last week that this decision had been made and that legislation was coming soon. The legislation has come. The Second Reading will come before the Easter Recess.

§ Mr. Gardner
Has my right hon. Friend yet given consideration to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) for a debate on the failure of the Opposition to apply for a New Writ for Brierley Hill?

§ Mr. Crossman
I regard it as most useful that on one day a week the Opposition should be reminded of their nervousness on this subject.

§ Mr. G. Campbell
Is the Leader of the House aware that the White Paper on Decimal Currency also said that the Government's decision on the system was subject to Parliamentary approval? As this is not a party matter, but will affect very closely every member of the general public, will the right hon. Gentleman allow a free vote at least on Clause 1 of the Bill, which governs this question?

§ Mr. Crossman
Of course the White Paper makes it clear that this matter is subject to Parliamentary approval. Everything is so subject, including the Second Reading of a Bill. The way in which each of us advises our members is best left to each other.

§ Mrs. Anne Kerr
Has my right hon. Friend had his attention drawn during the last few days to Motion No. 415 on defence of peace in the minds of men? Will he try to find time during the next few weeks for a debate on this subject?

§ Mr. Crossman
I appreciate the strength of feeling among my hon. Friends on this subject. I have again consulted my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. We are very sympathetic, but I remind my hon. Friends that I cannot see any possibility of providing Government time for such a debate up to the Easter Recess.

§ Mr. Farr
As the debate on the Navy Estimates was, for some reason or other, not concluded last night, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the date when the Vote is to be taken is to be generally promulgated and whether hon. Members will have a chance of continuing the debate before the Vote is taken?

§ Mr. Crossman
The discussion concluded last night, but the Vote can be taken next week with the other Votes. If there is any anxiety amongst hon. Members opposite, I give them the assurance that on the other two Estimates the Votes will be taken in the normal way.

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to taking the Whips off for the Second Reading of the Decimal Currency Bill? Will my right hon. Friend note that there are Members behind him who want to exercise their consciences with a clear conscience?

§ Mr. Crossman
I will take that fully into account.

§ Mr. Bryan
It is now some weeks since the Leader of the House promised us a 708 debate on the White Paper on Broadcasting. When is this debate due?

§ Mr. Crossman
I think that the hon. Gentleman forgets what actually happened. I said that we would discuss the Bill and would not, therefore, because the Opposition requested it, take the debate on the White Paper at the same time. I said that that debate would be postponed. I gave no kind of promise that it would be before Easter.

§ Mr. Moyle
Has the Leader of the House had time to consider now whether he can provide time for a debate on the Bill dealing with the registration and control of unlicensed clubs, since they are often used as channels for pushing drugs and their policing under the present laws is extremely difficult and wasteful of police manpower?

§ Mr. Crossman
I suggest that we should wait and see. I gather that the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) has a Ten-Minute Rule Motion down for Monday relating to an almost identical Bill to that in which my hon. Friend is interested. We should wait to see how that Bill fares and then look at the question again.

§ Mr. Sandys
May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a Motion, tabled today, entitled, "Pledge to South Arabia"? In view of the disreputable attempts made by the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence during the last few days to wriggle out of a clear pledge given to South Arabia, will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to correct these serious misstatements at the earliest opportunity?

§ Mr. Crossman
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in sending me the text of the Motion. I totally refute what he implied to my right hon. Friends and suggest that they will deal with him in the usual way when they have seen the notice.

§ Mr. Winnick
Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether there can be a debate on the Select Committee's recommendation on Standing Order No. 9?

§ Mr. Crossman
Yes. I am hoping that there will be a debate soon after the Easter Recess.

§ Mr. Clegg
Would the Leader of the House find time to discuss the problems of those areas, such as my own constituency, outside the development areas, which have an unemployment rate of 8.3 per cent.?

§ Mr. Crossman
The suggestion has been made from various quarters that we should discuss the problem of unemployment. That we certainly will bear in mind. I doubt whether we could have a specific debate devoted to the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

§ Mr. Crawshaw
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many Members on this side who are genuinely concerned about the merits or otherwise of the decimal currency proposal? Would he bear in mind that there are still a few of us on this side below the Gangway who would like to support a three-line Whip if possible?

§ Mr. Crossman
I expect that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary was listening to what my hon. Friend said. I will discuss this. I hope that my hon. Friend will catch the eye of the Chair on the Second Reading of the Bill so that he can express his views in the normal way.

§ Mr. Kershaw
Will the right hon. Gentleman provide an opportunity very soon for a further discussion about Aden? Will he ensure that it is in Government time, because the Government are widely blamed for what is going on there?

§ Mr. Crossman
I can give no kind of assurance about a debate. I think that there has been a fairly full investigation at Question Time. I can give an assurance that in the event of important happenings my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, as always, would make a statement.

§ Mr. Ashley
Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has a duty to relieve the anxiety of hon. Members opposite about the problem of unemployment? Will he find time to debate the impending unemployment of the Leader of the Opposition?

§ Mr. Maudling
As there is considerable concern in the House about the situation in Malta, may I ask the Leader of the House whether we may expect a statement next week?

§ Mr. Crossman
I do not think that a statement is intended now, but I know that the negotiations have started. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the moment we have reached a proper stage there will be a statement on how they are going.

§ Mr. Thornton
May I press my right hon. Friend to find time for a debate before Easter on the textile industry? The situation in Lancashire is giving rise to great concern. It may well be that through the usual channels the Opposition would be prepared to co-operate in finding time for a debate.

§ Mr. Crossman
I appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend has put his question to me, and I appreciate, also, the need or desire for a debate; but up to Easter—I have been looking at our plans—the time of the House is quite unusually booked, and inevitably so up to that time. If the Opposition were to consider that this was something they wanted to do in their time, we could consider it through the usual channels.

§ Sir J. Eden
I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) in pressing the right hon. Gentleman for an early debate on Aden and South Arabia. As the Prime Minister knows very well, the Egyptians are using gas in the Yemen. Ought not the House to be given an early opportunity to press the Government to lay the whole matter before the United Nations?

§ Mr. Crossman
I can only repeat that there is no prospect of a debate next week or the week after.

§ Mr. Whitaker
Will my right hon. Friend give definite news of action on the Brambell and Littlewood Reports, on which his predecessor promised a debate many months ago?

§ Mr. Crossman
I can give the news that the necessary legislation is now being thought of and carefully prepared for dealing with part of the Brambell Report.

§ Mr. Gwynfor Evans
Will the right hon. Gentleman look at Motion No. 444, on the use of the Welsh language in the courts, and find time to discuss this matter in view of the intolerable situation which has developed in Wales, where people are being imprisoned because of their 711 insistence upon using the Welsh language in public, official and legal affairs?

§ Mr. Crossman
We all appreciate the hon. Gentleman's pertinacity. He will realise that the Government have announced their acceptance of the principle of equality for the Welsh language and that the appropriate measures will be taken at the earliest practicable date.

§ Mr. McNamara
Will my right hon. Friend say when we can expect a discussion on the Report of the Pearson Inquiry concerning the shipping industry, which has just been issued? May we expect it before or after Easter, and shall we have an opportunity to debate the Report before legislation is introduced?

§ Mr. Crossman
We have to allow time to digest this extremely important Report. I would not like to commit myself until I have studied it and I can tell how urgent it is.

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his answers on Aden? Every day, as he knows, there are incidents and it looks as though these incidents are likely to go on. As far as we are aware, the Government's programme for withdrawing troops is going at the same rate as has always been laid down. The situation causes us great anxiety, apart from the more general matters mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). Will the Leader of the House consider a debate before Easter?

§ Mr. Crossman
My answers are not by any means as absolute as they normally are in refusing a debate, because I appreciate that this is a matter of great importance and that things are changing a great deal. I shall talk to the Foreign Secretary about it and see what he thinks.

§ Mr. Cant
As one of the loyal supporters of the Government, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware that, if a free vote were taken on decimalisation, 90 per cent. of Members would vote for a 10s. unit—

Hon. Members
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We cannot debate the decimal currency question. The hon. Gentleman must put a business question.

§ Mr. Cant
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was giving the background to my feeling on the subject, with a view to asking my right hon. Friend whether we could have an open debate on this matter which, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be legislating for 1,000 years, is one of great importance to the country.

Hon. Members
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Crossman
Of course, I appreciate the importance of the matter. Every debate is open. It is also a fact that the Government have declared their policy on this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: Why?"] The Government have declared their policy on the matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong."]—and they propose—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Many hon. Members wish to ask business questions. Noise does not help.

§ Mr. Frederic Harris
On Monday, I have the second Private Member's Motion, on the vital subject of the burden on ratepayers. May I have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the Government will not deliberately extend the debate before me so that I do not have an opportunity to be called?

§ Mr. Crossman
An assurance about what happens in private Member's time is beyond the capacity of the Leader of the House.

§ Mr. Fowler
Can my right hon. Friend soon find time for a debate on Vietnam, 713 in view of the changed situation in the House, signalised by the proposal from the Opposition Front Bench yesterday that British ships should operate in Vietnamese waters?

§ Mr. Crossman
I agree that that is a factor to take into account, but there is no time before Easter, as far as I can see, without a major reorganisation of Government business, for that topic to be debated.

§ Sir T. Brinton
May I press the Leader of the House for a debate on the decimal currency? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It seems that this has the over-whelming support of the House. The Government have decided their policy in advance. Do they not want to know what we think?

§ Mr. Crossman
It seems that there is considerable misunderstanding, either genuine or synthetic. The Government are anxious to find the will of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This is why they propose a Bill on decimalisation, on which the House can make up its mind.

§ Mr. Philip Noel-Baker
Can my right hon. Friend give us a valid reason why there should not be a free vote on the currency matter before the Bill is introduced and the Government have committed themselves to a given policy?

§ Mr. Crossman
There is a simple reason, namely, that the Government have stated their policy already—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is wrong."]—and have decided to put a Bill before the House. It will be up to the House to decide what to do with it.

§ Mr. Heath
On this question of decimalisation, the Leader of the House is being disingenuous to a degree never before encountered even in himself. Last week, he gave a specific undertaking that he would discuss through the usual channels the timing of a debate. He has not done that. The Government have now got themselves into an intolerable situation in relation to the House. The right hon. Gentleman must realise the depth of feeling in the House in all quarters on this matter. Will he not face up to it and agree that there should be a debate before the Bill? The Government could then act on the view of the 714 House and get themselves out of the jam into which they have put themselves.

§ Mr. Crossman
The right hon. Gentleman asks to have two days devoted to this question—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes—two days devoted to decimalisation, one on the White Paper and one on the Bill. We prefer to have one day on the Bill.

Mr. Bob Brown
Will the Leader of the House accept that many genuine supporters of the Government take a very dim view of his reference to synthetic outrage? Many of us feel that we should have been consulted about decimalisation. Will he give an opportunity?

§ Mr. Crossman
The question whether hon. Members consult or do not consult is not related to the business for next week.

§ Mr. Biffen
Why is the Leader of the House so obdurate on the question of a decimal currency? Does he not agree that this is a matter of great significance and that, if the Government wish to see the House of Commons restored with some prestige, it is one which the House should debate? The fact that we may occupy two days is merely an acknowledgment of the importance which the issue has for the country and our successors.

§ Mr. Crossman
The hon. Gentleman will apreciate that his point about giving two days would put an enormous burden on Government business—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—if, on every occasion, a Government first submitted to a debate on the White Paper and then on the Second Reading of a Bill. We have decided that on this issue two such debates in 10 days would be too much.

§ Mr. Heath
May I make an offer to the Leader of the House, to assist him? If he is prepared to have a debate on the principle, on which the House can have a free vote and express its view, we for our part would then allow the consequent Bill, in accordance with the wishes of the House, to go forward formally.

Hon. Members
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Crossman
The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget how the House of Commons conducts its business. He may tell us that he is prepared to let the 715 Decimal Currency Bill go through without discussion, but he has no power to bind every Member of the House. It is obvious that, if there is to be a Second Reading, there will be a Second Reading debate. I am astounded that the right hon. Gentleman makes his proposal.

§ Mr. E. L. Mallalieu
My right hon. Friend will appreciate the importance that attaches to Motion 415. Can he say whether he will do his best to see that we have a debate on that Motion after Easter?

§ Mr. Crossman
As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr), who first asked about this Motion, I discussed it with the Foreign Secretary, but it is unlikely that we shall be able to devote a whole day to this subject when there are so many aspects of foreign affairs, including the Middle East, that we need to discuss.

§ Mr. Hirst
When will the Leader of the House realise that his courtesy to the House is becoming increasingly less obvious when he brushes aside serious undertakings such as the undertaking he gave last week, and that it is impossible to imagine that he can command respect of the House if he, in turn, will not show respect for the overwhelming wish of the House?

§ Mr. Crossman
I think that if the hon. Member reflects he will find that those accusations are unjust. Last week I discussed at this Box with the Opposition the possibility, which they then put, of an initial debate on decimal currency before Second Reading, but I then warned that the Government had already declared their policy, and I concluded my second statement by saying that we had a programme to get through but that this matter would be discussed through the usual channels.
I am told by the Opposition that this discussion has in no way taken place and I will check that, because I will be concerned about that matter. Apart from that, I do not think it fair, if I may say so, to say that I have been discourteous to the House in any way.

§ Mr. Tuck
How can my right hon. Friend say that he wants to test the opinion of the House if there is not to be a free vote?

Hon. Members
Answer.

§ Mr. Crossman
Certainly, I will answer. It would be a strange piece of constitutional theory to say that there could not be any test of opinion in the House of Commons unless there was nothing but a free vote. We could not get very far with getting our business through in that way.

§ Mr. Peyton
How can the right hon. Gentleman sustain the view that he is interested in the opinion of the House of Commons when he rejects the perfectly reasonable offer made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition?

§ Mr. Crossman
I have always believed that the right hon. Gentleman means the questions he asks, so I answer them in the same spirit. The answer here is that the House of Commons constantly concerns itself with Bills where we test the opinion of the House and then give advice to Members. This is a perfectly normal way of conducting Parliamentary debate. It is no good saying that we do not debate freely, when we advise ourselves in the normal way.

§ Mr. Ginsburg
As there was a debate on the principle of decimal currency in another place, will my right hon. Friend give serious thought to his present view, and also consider the point of view of our constituents in this matter?

§ Mr. Crossman
We will consider the point of view of constituents in this matter, but decimal currency has been discussed for a long time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."]—and it will be discussed here in 10 days' time.

§ Mr. Hastings
The right hon. Gentleman is said to be jealous of his reputation as a reformer in Parliament, and is on record as saying that he wants this place to be effective. That being so, is not this a critical moment for him? Why cannot he sense the feeling of the House, and take an opinion on decimal coinage without more ado?

§ Mr. Crossman
Because, as Leader of the House, I have more than one obligation. I have the obligation to the House, which I seek to honour, to look after the rights of back benchers. I also have a responsibility to the House as a whole and to the Government with regard to 717 business. There is a lot of business before Easter. The almost unprecedented suggestion made to me was that, on a Bill of this kind, we should have two days of debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—two whole days' debate; one on the White Paper—[Interruption.] I do not get shouted down. It has been proposed to me that we should have one day's debate on the White Paper—[Interrutpion.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Opinion can be expressed and pressure can be put on Ministers without foolish noise.

§ Mr. Crossman
I do not want to be guilty of otiose repetition, so let me be precise. The proposal is made to me that in addition to the debate on the Second Reading, which will take place before the Easter Recess, there should be another debate on the same subject. That means taking two days on the subject and, frankly, I think that that is more than the subject deserves.

§ Mr. Heath
Does not the Leader of the House realise what is clear to everyone else, which is that the great majority of Members want to be able to express an opinion and take a decision without having any Whips on? This is quite understandable. I have already put to the right hon. Gentleman the suggestion that if there were to be a debate in these circumstances, and the Bill consequently expressed the will of the House, whatever it might be, I believe that the House would allow the Second Reading to go forward formally.
The Leader of the House has not accepted that suggestion, so perhaps I may make another proposal. I believe that in those circumstances the whole House would be prepared for the Bill to go to the Second Reading Committee. That would not take up a Second Reading day on the Floor of the House at all. Would the right hon. Gentleman accept a day's debate in which hon. Members can express their views without the Whips on, which is what I believe the House wants, and the Bill then to go to the Second Reading Committee?

§ Mr. Crossman
To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, I think that he had better look at the Bill before he decides that it is suitable for a Second Reading Committee. We have to consider the nature of the Bill. This is certainly a 718 possibility. If it can be discussed through the usual channels we will do so, but we want to get on with the Measure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] We want the Second Reading before the Easter Recess—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because this is part of the Government's plans.

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend has said that it is his duty to protect the rights of back-bench Members. He knows that Government business is only carried through this House on the loyalty of those hon. Members who obey the party system. Is it in order for my right hon. Friend to keep relying on this business of protecting back-bench Members, when he knows jolly well that it does not apply?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that that was not a point of order.

§ Mr. Coe
Reverting to the critical position of the textile industry, may I urge my right hon. Friend to consider finding time before Easter at a morning sitting for at least a short debate on this important matter?

§ Mr. Crossman
That is a proposal well worthy of consideration. I should like to consult the usual channels, though I wonder whether this is a suitable subject for a morning sitting. If it is, we would certainly consider that suggestion.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether I can have an assurance that he will keep his pledged word about having discussions for an early debate on Aden, and not treat that promise in the light and cavalier way in which he has treated previous promises on decimal currency?

§ Mr. Crossman
I entirely repudiate that suggestion. I have not treated any promises I have made in a light way. During last week's business exchanges I precisely stated the situation. I warned the House that the Government were committed to this Measure and also that we had to get on with the programme, which, I said, we would also discuss through the usual channels. If it is true that the discussion did not take place I accept my rebuke—it should have taken place. Apart from that, I think that it is 719 unfair of the hon. Gentleman even to suggest that any promise has been broken. I shall keep my promise to speak to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will regret he should have treated a fellow Member in that way.

§ Mr. Henig
Will the Leader of the House consider the suggestion that the time he now proposes to allot to the Second Reading of the Decimal Currency Bill should be given to a discussion of the much more urgent question of unemployment in Lancashire; and that the matter of decimalisation should be left until after the Easter Recess, so that he and his right hon. Friends might reconsider it in view of the manifest wishes of many hon. Members on this side of the House?

§ Mr. Crossman
This would be a matter of losing a day of Government business. We have a lot of business, and are determined, I think rightly, to get our main Bills through Second Reading and into Committee, if we are to end our business in July at a reasonable date. We therefore need to get these main Bills into Committee. That is why the main Bills we are putting forward are now being completed. We have announced the Leasehold Reform Bill, and that, together with the Bill on shipbuilding and the Decimal Currency Bill are three main Measures we want to get into Committee. If we do not get them we shall not be up before the middle of August.

§ Mr. Ian Gilmour
Since the Leader of the House is widely thought to be a Parliamentary reformer and to be concerned to restore the power of Parliament, is it not a test of his sincerity that he should allow a free vote on decimalisation?

§ Mr. Crossman
I would not say that the allowing of a free vote on this, or that —which, by the way, is not for the Leader of the House, but for the Whips on both sides, to decide—is a matter which really tests the supremacy of Parliament. Parliament needs parties and Whips to keep going. It also needs to respect the rights of private Members. What we need—[Interruption.] The hon. Member asked a question; he might listen to the answer. What we need to achieve is a 720 balance between the two. The issue we have to decide is whether this particular case is suitable for the way he recommends, or the way I recommend.

§ Mr. Francis Noel-Baker
Is not my right hon. Friend aware that in the 22 years since I first came to this House the rights and powers and influence of back benchers have been steadily eroded and that if he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer persist in treating what is not a party matter as a matter for the Whips, and treating his hon. Friends as only Lobby fodder, they are pushing us too far?

§ Mr. Crossman
I think that it would be a great mistake for my hon. Friend to have the impression that I have ever thought of him as only Lobby fodder. The question is whether on this particular Bill there should be no advice given by either side to its members. This is not a matter for the House, but something we should discuss among ourselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

§ Mr. Speaker
Sir Charles Taylor.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Hon. Members make such a noise that they cannot hear whom I call. May I at this stage remind the House that there is important business ahead of the House on which some hon. Members feel keenly. Sir Charles Taylor.

§ Mr. Kershaw
On a point of order. Do we understand from the last remark by the Leader of the House that he is to withdraw the business of next week into his party committee?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a point of order.

§ Sir Charles Taylor
What is the extreme hurry about the Decimal Currency Bill? If the Government listened to the view of the House they might well want to withdraw the present Bill, which they have published prematurely.

§ Mr. Crossman
As I explained to an hon. Friend, what we are seeking to do is to get our Bills through Second Reading and into Committee in good time so that we can complete our business by the end of July. That will be impossible unless we get the Bills through in good time. 721 In reply to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) I made no suggestion that we should withdraw anything. What I said was that it should be a decision among ourselves on each side as to what advice we should give to our members. That is what we usually do in private and it applies to the hon. Member's side as well as to mine.

§ Mr. Ogden
While I would not wish to add to the difficulties of the Leader of the House, may I ask whether he is aware that there is also deep anxiety in some parts of the House about the intentions of the Government in the matter of prices, productivity and incomes? Will he consider giving some time for a debate on this matter, so that we may know the intentions of the Government and the Government may know the intentions of some hon. Members? Will he note the direction from which this comes?

§ Mr. Crossman
I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned this, because it is a subject of major importance. As the House knows, we have had some important meetings this week and further discussions will take place. The Government are aware, of course, that on this issue hon. Members on both sides, particularly ours, feel a vital interest. I can assure them that a statement will be made to the House as soon as possible.

§ Mr. Woodburn
On a point of order. I gather than there is a great deal of difference of opinion about some detail of the Decimal Currency Bill. If a Bill is presented to the House, is it not in order to amend the detail when it comes to Committee?

§ Mr. Crossman
I would not be honest with the House if I suggested that I think it just a matter of detail. There are two or three proposals, one of which has been included in the Government's proposals, and another, or two others, have been turned down. I gathered that the desire was to have all three discussed on a par, as though there were no commitment. As I explained last week, this was impossible because the Government made clear in the White Paper where they stood.

§ Mr. Jopling
Reverting to the matter of decimal currency, in view of the strong feelings expressed on both sides of the 722 House, and the offer made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and also accepting the difficulties the Leader of the House is in about Government time, will not the right hon. Gentleman at least agree to have conversations with his colleagues to see if he can find a way of accommodating the strong feelings of hon. Members?

§ Mr. Crossman
I think that I explained to the Leader of the Opposition on his last intervention that these proposals, which, as he agrees, are novel, would have to be thought out carefully. I would certainly discuss them through the usual channels.

§ Mr. Brooks
Following the exchange we have had for nearly three-quarters of an hour, cannot my right hon. Friend now see that any effort by the Government to put the Whips on on decimalisation would be seen by everyone who has witnessed these exchanges to be totally indefensible and outrageous?

§ Mr. Crossman
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member had not finished his question.

§ Mr. Brooks
Is not my right hon. Friend aware that following the publication of the White Paper, last autumn, there has been a remarkable change in public opinion and a remarkable unanimity of sentiment has been expressed by numerous organisations?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We cannot argue the issue itself.

§ Mr. Brooks
Will my right hon. Friend not, then, change his mind?

§ Mr. Crossman
Again, let me remind my hon. Friend that the issue we are discussing today is one about the business of the House and when it should take place. The question how the Government and their supporters on the back benches should view this matter, and how we should advise one another, is not one for this place at all. This is something which should be discussed in another part of this building. I suggest to my hon. Friends that if they want to discuss it, this is not the place to do so. They might watch the Tories; they do not do it here.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. May I remind some hon. and right hon. Members that there is no second round for anyone on business questions.

§ Mr. Blaker
The right hon. Gentleman claimed a little while ago that he had not been discourteous to the House. How then does he explain his claim that the feeling on both sides of the House about decimal currency is synthetic? On reflection, does he not regret that word and wish to withdraw it?

§ Mr. Crossman
If I made a charge that I thought it synthetic, I withdraw it. I think it was a longer and more complicated sentence. Nevertheless, I am an amenable person and if the hon. Member does not like the word "synthetic", I would be the first to withdraw it.

§ Mr. Maxwell
While recognising the difficulties of the Leader of the House and admiring the way he has batted here for almost an hour, may I ask whether he will agree that Governments have sometimes been found to be wrong? Will he perhaps consider this? If the Leader of the Opposition, instead of playing party politics, would give a day to debate this matter, would he accept that and allow a debate on decimal currency before he introduces the Bill on Second Reading?

§ Mr. Crossman
I think that we have now moved beyond that. The Leader of the Opposition has made a specific proposal to me which needs to be tested to be practicable; it needs some working out. As I have said, I will consider the proposal through the usual channels.

§ Sir J. Rodgers
When the right hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking last week to have discussions through the usual channels on a possible debate on decimalisation, was the Bill ready for presentation or was it speeded up to avoid a debate?

§ Mr. Crossman
The Bill was ready. As I said, I could not give an actual date, but it was ready for early legislation.

§ Mr. Lipton
While admitting that I am an unrepentant ten-bobber, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this possibility—scrapping the business set down for two morning sittings next week 724 and substituting a debate on the relative merits of 10s. or £1 as the unit and to have a free vote on Wednesday night?

§ Mr. Crossman
I appreciate the growing realisation that morning sittings serve a useful purpose. We have already had an important debate on unemployment in certain areas. I would not have thought that this question was suitable for morning sittings, but that we needed it for an important debate on Wednesday afternoon.

§ Sir S. McAdden
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Has the hon. Member for Southend, East already asked a question?

Sir S. MacAdden
No, Mr. Speaker I asked a question of the Prime Minister, earlier.
Does the Leader of the House recall that in reply to an earlier business question, on the shipping industry, he said that it was right and proper that we should debate the Report of the Pearson Committee before proceeding to legislation on that vast and important matter? Does he not consider that the changeover to decimal currency is also a vast and important matter which will affect the shipping industry as well as every other industry? Why will he not let us debate that matter and come to a decision on the course we want to pursue before introducing legislation?

§ Mr. Crossman
We must consider each case on its merits and whether we should have the procedure sometimes adopted in important matters of debating the White Paper on policy followed by a debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. Some important matters go one way and some go another. The hon. Member and I differ on this particular case.

§ Sir Knox Cunningham
Would not the solution be for the Leader of the House to use the time before Easter for a free vote and discussion and have the Second Reading of the Bill some time after Easter or Whitsun? What is the hurry for the Second Reading?

§ Mr. Crossman
Again, I apologise for otiose repetition. This is the fifth time the question has been asked me in an almost identical form. I shall repeat 725 my answer because each time it is repeated it is more persuasive.
If we wish to get our Bills through Parliament I know from bitter experience that it is important to get Second Readings through before the Budget period, get the Bills into Committee and then into another place. That is the reason why every Government seeks to get major Second Readings before the Easter Recess. I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman, with his experience of government, does not realise that.

§ Mr. Roebuck
Does my right hon. Friend realise that his obstinacy on the matter is causing great embarrassment to his hon. Friends? Will he consider the will of the House, think about the matter, and come back with new proposals?

§ Mr. Crossman
With all respect to my hon. Friend, the embarrassment is mutual.

§ Mr. Webster
Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that he needs the co-operation of the House if he is to get legislation? He is hardly going about it in the best way.

§ Mr. Crossman
That is not really a question about the business for next week. But I shall reply. I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will see that his allegation is obviously untrue. As Leader of the House I am putting before the House our proposals for business, the days on which we shall take the main Second Readings, and telling the House in advance that it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Decimal Currency Bill before Easter. I do not think that it is discourteous to the House for the Government to announce that decision.

§ Mr. Kenneth Lewis
Does the Leader of the House now recognise that, quite apart from other considerations, in view of the length of time the matter has been discussed this afternoon, and the number of interventions, there is so much interest in it in the House that it would be impossible to get in in one day the number of Members who would want to make speeches so that there could be an adequate debate on the subject?

§ Mr. Crossman
It would not be the first occasion on which there was a queue 726 of speakers to speak on an important issue.

§ Mr. Philip Noel-Baker
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman has already asked a business question.

§ Mr. James Davidson
Will the Leader of the House tell the House to whom he has made the commitment on the introduction of decimal currency about which he has talked? He mentioned a commitment which he must adhere to. To whom was the commitment made?

§ Mr. Crossman
If I used the word "commitment" I should have said "the Government have stated that the decision has been taken." The Government decided on the course which they will put to the House. The House will debate it and vote on it and either agree or disagree. The hon. Gentleman should not think that an outrageously constitutional procedure.

§ Mr. J. E. B. Hill
Surely the discourtesy shown not only to this side of the House, but to his own side, makes clear that the Leader of the House should not prejudge the issue on the Bill or put on the Whips? He will find that instead of decimal currency he will need a four-line Whip.

§ Mr. Crossman
I again repeat that the issue we discuss at business question time is what business we do each day. How each party conducts its affairs is for the party to decide, and is not normally discussed at business time.

§ Mr. Hector Hughes
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you not allowing the supplementary questions to run for an unusually long period? Would it not be a good idea for us to get on with the business of the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am grateful for the crystal clarity and truth of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said. The Question is—

§ Mr. Lubbock
On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on decimal currency in which the opinion of the House can be 727 expressed freely before the Second Reading of the Decimal Currency Bill. I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for not having given you notice that I intended to raise that matter, but, as you will appreciate, the matter on which I seek to initiate a debate has only just come before the House in the replies which the Leader of the House has just given.
This matter is definite because until today it was still uncertain whether there would be a debate on the White Paper to precede a debate on the Second Reading, following the promise the Leader of the House gave the Leader of the Opposition last week, and the implications of the replies he gave to several questions I put to him at business question time before Christmas, including 1st and 8th December.
I suggest that the matter is urgent, because unless we can have a debate on the Mite Paper before Easter the Bill will go through in its present form under the power of the Whips, and a decision will have been made which, I believe, will be very unpopular throughout the country.
I suggest that it is also a matter of public importance. That suggestion needs no elaboration bearing in mind that at least 20 questions on decimal currency have been addressed to the Leader of the House from both sides this afternoon, and that opinions have also been expressed by influential bodies outside—the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Consumer Council, the Co-operative Union and—this morning—The Times.
There is no doubt that it is a matter of public importance far transcending the 728 immediate question whether we should have one day or two for a Second Reading debate. The Leader of the House has had clear expression of opinion from both sides that it is the will of the House that we should have a debate before Second Reading.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman seeks to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on decimal currency in which the opinion of the House can be expressel freely before the Second Reading of the Decimal Currency Bill. I have no complaint to make to the hon. Gentleman for not giving me notice that he sought to raise that matter. It would have been manifestly impossible for him to give me notice up until about a quarter of an hour ago.
I do not think that the Motion can be submitted to the House, as to discuss the matter would anticipate proceedings on an Order of the Day. The House has long ago established precedents which must now guide the Chair in this sense. Instances of application for Standing Order No. 9 being refused in these special circumstances are found as far back as 1888, a few years after the Standing Order was passed in 1882. I cannot, therefore, allow the hon. Gentleman's application to be submitted to the House this afternoon.