§ Mr. HeathMay I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for the first week after the Recess, and welcome him to his first business statement?
§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Frederick Peart)I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remark. I shall do my best.
The business for the first week after the Easter Adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 23RD APRIL—Second Reading of the Race Relations Bill.
Second Reading of the Criminal Appeal Bill [Lords], of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords], of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Bill [Lords] and of the Rent Bill [Lords], which are Consolidation Measures.
Motions on the Fatstock (Amendment) Orders.
WEDNESDAY, 24TH APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY, 25TH APRIL—Debate on the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Certain Contracts made with Bristol Siddeley Engines Ltd. and on the related Report from the Public Accounts Committee.
Remaining stages of the Criminal Appeal Bill [Lords], of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords], of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Bill [Lords] and of the Rent Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Kingston upon Hull Order.
FRIDAY, 26TH APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
§ Mr. HeathI have two questions. First, the new Leader of the House has made no announcement about the following Monday, which has been the usual custom. I hope that this does not mean that the Government will no longer make that: sort of business announcement.
Second, why has not the Leader of the House given us a second day on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill? In all quarters of the House it was shown last week how strongly hon. Members want a second day. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor undertook to 1590 give the fullest consideration to it, and he gave the impression of thinking about it favourably. I did not think that the new Leader of the House would be even less flexible than the old. Will not the right hon. Gentleman go back and consider the matter again, especially now that the Finance Bill is published and there will be many hon. Members wanting to express their views before the Bill goes into Committee?
§ Mr. PeartOn the first point, it has not been customary to do it. I am advised that, at a time when there is a longer interval than usual between the announcement of business and the Monday, it has not been done. However, I shall look at the precedents again if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to press it. I am informed that the practice is not as he has suggested.
As regards the Finance Bill, the principle will be debated on Second Reading, and it has, in effect, been discussed during the four days' debate on the Budget Resolutions on which the Bill is founded. I should have thought, as it is not exempted business, that hon. Members were afforded reasonable opportunity.
§ Mr. HeathThe debate on the Budget has never been taken as the same thing as the debate on the Finance Bill, which is the legislation embodying the Resolutions which we discuss in the Budget debate. Moreover—I think that the right hon. Gentleman said that it is not exempted business—although it is exempted business, to discuss a Bill of this kind all through the night instead of having two proper days for debate cannot be satisfactory. Will not the Government give two full days for a proper discussion of this important Measure?
§ Mr. PeartThe right hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of this. After all, going back to 1947, it was the Labour Government at that time who extended the Budget debate from three days to four. I believe that the time we have allowed is adequate, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.
§ Mr. HeathThe Leader of the House does not seem to recognise that the main difference is that, instead of our having what the Prime Minister still refers to as 1591 the Finance Bill marathon on the Floor of the House, the Bill is to go to Committee, with a very small number of hon. and right hon. Members present. If the Government want to have any support for this reform at all, they ought to give the House a proper occasion for debating the Second Reading. It is a matter of the utmost financial and constitutional importance.
§ Mr. PeartThe right hon. Gentleman knows that for 14 years it has been the practice to have just one day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Things are different now"] I recognise that the situation has changed. I have made the announcement. I would only say that we will see how it goes and, if the situation has to be changed on another occasion, we shall consider it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I cannot go beyond what I have said.
§ Mr. Hugh JenkinsIs my right hon. Friend aware that the House spends far too much time considering monetary matters and not enough considering other matters? Will he find opportunity and time for consideration of the Motion standing in the names of several of my hon. Friends and myself suggesting that the Government should consider emulating the foreign policy of the Swedish Government?
[That this House welcomes the statement of the Government of Sweden reaffirming that country's policy of neutrality and believes that the British Government could learn much from a study of this policy; notes with appreciation and approval the Swedish Government's firm attitudes and actions in rejectting the policy the United States Government has been following in Vietnam, in condemning racial persecution in Southern Africa and in protesting against the suppression of democracy in Greece; and urges Her Majesty's Government to follow the example of the Swedish Government in consistently asserting the validity of a moral position in international affairs.]
§ Mr. PeartThat is a matter other than the timing of Business. I note what my hon. Friend has said.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is not good enough on the Finance Bill to say that he will see how it goes. The effect 1592 of leaving only one day in the circumstances of the Bill going upstairs to Committee is that the majority of hon. Members will have no chance to express their views until the Report stage. It will then be too late for the Government to promise Amendments at another stage because there is not another stage effectively on the Finance Bill. In those circumstances, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that to deny people their traditional right to discuss the main financial Measures of the year is an outrage?
§ Mr. PeartI cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's extravagant remarks. I have explained the position and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.
§ Mr. ShinwellIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the purpose of sending Bills upstairs is to truncate the business in the House. The matter has been debated over many years, and many prominent Conservatives when they were on this side of the House advocated this procedure. Now it has been decided to send the Bill upstairs, what is the point of having one more day?
§ Mr. PeartI am grateful for the advice of my right hon. Friend. This is true. The whole purpose of sending the Bill upstairs is to get it debated and to save time on the Floor of the House. The procedure will enable hon. Members to have adequate time for discussion.
§ Mr. HeathThe Leader of the House will be saving on the Floor of the House between eight and 16 days on the Committee stage. Can he not out of that time give one extra day for the debate on Second Reading? The Government's business must be in a disgraceful state if he cannot possibly spare one extra day out of the dozen which he is saving for a proper discussion on Second Reading.
§ Mr. PeartThe right hon. Member is being persistent. I cannot accept what he says. For the reasons I have already mentioned, there will be adequate time for hon. Members to discuss the Bill in detail. [An HON. MEMBER: "Too late."] It is not too late. The debate, as I have said, will afford hon. Members plenty of time to express their views, and their detailed views can be expressed in Committee upstairs.
§ Mr. Philip Noel-BakerCan the Leader of the House say, in view of the large amount of time which is going to be saved, whether we shall have an early debate on Vietnam, and would he consider that the share of this honourable House in the discussion and control of foreign policy has been eroded almost to nothing in recent years?
§ Mr. PeartI have announced the Business for the first week after the adjournment. There is no opportunity in that week for such a debate, but I will convey to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary the views of my hon. Friend.
§ Sir D. Walker-SmithReverting to the Finance Bill, can the right hon. Gentleman clarify his use of the expression "will see how it goes"? That is an expression which is normally a prelude to the possibility of constructive second thoughts or helpful concessions. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what such second thoughts or concessions could be in the context of what he is now proposing?
§ Mr. PeartI assume I shall be the Leader of the House for some considerable time, and therefore I would always look at Parliamentary procedure with an objective mind. This is sensible. I think the decision to make this reform is right, and for that reason I cannot concede what the Leader of the Opposition is asking me to do, but I would like to see how events go.
§ Mr. DempseyCould I refer my right hon. Friend to the fact that some of us were led to believe that we would have a debate either last week or this week on the Scottish storm damage. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the Herculean efforts of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of State, homes still have not been repaired and there are still attics without any covering?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member is going into a debate. He must ask for a debate.
§ Mr. DempseyCould my right hon. Friend give some idea when we are likely to have this delayed debate, in view of the urgency of the matter?
§ Mr. PeartI know it is very important to my Scottish colleagues and to my hon. Friend. I cannot put it in the Business for the first week. I will convey the urgency of the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but it will not be in that week's Business.
§ Mr. ThorpeMay I, too, welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new job and applaud his undertaking to approach all matters with an objective mind. On the strength of that recently given undertaking, may I press him once again on the Finance Bill? Is he aware that the importance of the Finance Bill is one of the reasons why it has heretofore been taken in Committee of the Whole House? Would he not agree that this indicates the exceptional importance of the Measure? In view of the fact that many of us would wish to see the success of his predecessor's reform of taking more matters upstairs, it is important that hon. Members on both sides should have time to debate the Finance Bill before it goes up into Committee. Would he therefore, as Leader of the House, give very serious consideration to allocating two days?
§ Mr. PeartI note what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I thank him for his kind remarks. I cannot add to what I have already said that, as Leader of the House, I will always approach matters in an objective way.
§ Mr. DickensMay I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the early day Motion on the need for a code of conduct for the private sector of the economy, which stands in my name and the names of 78 of my right hon. and hon. Friends?
[That this House, while fully supporting the Government's regional policies as an instrument of full employment and economic growth, notes that Government assistance to private industry is currently costing the taxpayer £2 million per day; and expresses grave concern about the lack of social responsibility evident in recent company mergers, with their subsequent elect on factory closures and unemployment; calls upon the Government to enter into urgent discussions with the Confederation of British Industries and the Trades Union Congress to prepare a code of conduct applicable to all private firms in receipt of public funds, 1595 to include trade union recognition, joint consultation with trade unions, local authorities and regional economic planning councils, particularly on proposed factory closures and manpower redeployment, compensation for redundancy, transferability of pensions, payment of transfer allowances, the phased introduction of equal pay and staff status for manual workers, company manpower and training policies; and, thus, to make the private sector of the economy more fully accountable to the nation.]
Can we expect a debate on this after the Easter Recess? Are we having a White Paper and are the Government intending to move in this direction?
§ Mr. PeartI cannot say that there will be a White Paper. I note what my hon. Friend has said, and I have looked at this on the Order Paper. It is not in the first week's Business, and I am only answering for that, but I will consider carefully what he has said.
§ Mr. RidsdaleThe answer of the Leader of the House to the hon. Member for East Hertfordshire (Sir D. Walker-Smith) that he will see how it goes has left the House in greater doubt than when he first used the expression. Will he give an undertaking to consider the matter before this year's debate and not leave it until next year?
§ Mr. PeartThere is no question of leaving the House in doubt. I am afraid I cannot rearrange the Business of the House as I have been asked to do. [Interruption.] An hon. Member for one of the Northern Irish constituencies is always making rude remarks.
§ Sir Knox CunninghamSouth Antrim.
§ Mr. SpeakerWhen hon. Members wish to correct each other, will they do it in a Parliamentary way?
§ Mr. PeartI always tried to be courteous to questioners before I became Leader of the House, and I shall continue to be so. I merely say I have made up my mind on this, but later we will have to look at how new developments work out. This is sensible.
§ Sir Knox CunninghamWould the right hon. Member who is Leader of the 1596 House and who has a responsibility for the back benchers and their privileges, consider that because the Finance Bill is going upstairs a great number of people who want to raise points will not be able to do so, and will he consult the Deputy Leader to see if something can be done now, this year?
§ Mr. PeartI cannot accept what the hon. Member has said. There will be a Recommittal, there will be Report stage, there will be adequate chance for right hon. and hon. Members to put forward their points of view. I cannot accept the reasoning of the hon. Member.
§ Mr. PavittWould my right hon. Friend make arrangements for an early statement by the Minister of Health on the way he intends to deal with the Royal Commission on Medical Education?
Earl of DalkeithHas the Leader of the House consulted the Opposition parties on his proposals for two Scottish Standing Committees in order to secure their agreement, and is it expected that they will be dealing with something more appetising than sewerage?
§ Mr. PeartI have had no consultations personally on that. If this is a matter on which hon. Members feel very deeply I shall be delighted to do so and to have talks through the usual channels.
§ Mr. RidsdaleIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Budget debate only 20 hon. Members on this side of the House were able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye? Does he realise that only 20 hon. Members on this side will be on the Committee? Is he really trying to stifle discussion? Does he not realise that all of us want two days for the Finance Bill?
§ Mr. PeartI cannot accept that. There is no reason why the hon. Gentleman should not make a speech.
§ Mr. WhitakerWith regard to the Race Relations Bill, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there will be sufficient time for the three totally irreconcilable Conservative attitudes to be expressed? Will he also give an assurance that unless the Bill is extended to Northern Ireland hon. Members for Northern Ireland will neither speak nor vote?
§ Mr. PeartI am afraid that that is another matter that I cannot answer from the business point of view.
§ Mr. HeathWill the right hon. Gentleman, following up his reply to my hon. Friend, give an undertaking that the closure will not be moved on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill?
§ Mr. PeartI think that the right hon. Gentleman knows from his experience when he was in Government that no Leader of the House could give that specific assurance at this stage.
§ Mr. HeathThen why did the right hon. Gentleman tell my hon. Friend that he would be bound to be able to speak?
§ Mr. PeartI said that the hon. Member will have all the democratic rights of any other hon. Member to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
§ Mr. ShinwellOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect, is not this becoming a debate? Now that the Leader of the House has given the answer several times, is it worth proceeding with this?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is a matter for the House itself. I have to protect, as far as I can, the Adjournment debates, but I cannot stop business questions.
§ Several hon. Members rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Costain.
Earl of DalkeithFurther to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is this not a case where democracy is very much at stake? Ought we not to do all we can to safeguard it?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have no comment to make on that, which is obvious.
§ Sir Knox Cunningham rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. and learned Gentleman has had his Business question. He might let other hon. Members have theirs.
§ Sir Knox CunninghamOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that my constituents pay exactly the same taxes as any other constituents in the United Kingdom and have a right to be heard on the Finance Bill here?
§ Mr. SpeakerOn the first part of the Question, I am not the Chancellor of the 1598 Exchequer. On the second all hon. Members and all constituents represented by hon. Members have exactly the same rights in this House.
§ Mr. CostainCan the Leader of the House tell us by what means he will announce the Business for the first Monday, and if he has not got a debate settled, can he not give another day for the Finance Bill?
§ Mr. PeartI cannot do that. As I said, it is not customary—precedents have been set—to make an announcement at this stage.
§ Mr. LubbockHas the right hon. Gentleman had discussions with his predecessor about the serious and continued delays in debating the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology dealing with the nuclear reactor programme? Will he carpet the Ministers of Technology and Power for their failure to publish their replies to the Report so that we can debate this very important matter?
§ Mr. PeartMy right hon. Friend the Lord President has consulted me on this. I will look into it very carefully.
§ Mr. BiffenCan the Leader of the House tell us by what methods he proposes to disclose to the House the scope and authority of the new Ministry of Employment and Productivity?
§ Mr. JoplingWill the right hon. Gentleman say what he means when he says "We will see how it goes"? I am sorry to come back to this again. What criteria will he use? Will he at least give an undertaking that if a substantial number of hon. Members have not been called when we get towards the end of the first day's sitting he will then allow more time?
§ Mr. PeartI cannot add to what I have already said. The hon. Gentleman is only repeating what other hon. Members have said.
§ Mr. HeathWill the Leader of the House recognise that his flat refusal to take any notice of representation by the Opposition on a major piece of legislation and a major debate during the year 1599 bodes ill for his future as Leader of the House?
§ Mr. BagierWill my right hon. Friend ensure that he moves the Closure at the end of the debate on the Finance Bill in view of the very important debate the following day on the contracts situation with the Bristol Siddeley Company?