HC Deb 31 October 1968 vol 772 cc163-78
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 and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart)

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

The debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech will be continued on MONDAY, 4TH NOVEMBER, when, subject to the tabling and selection of Amendments, there will be a debate on the Introduction of the Two-Tier Postal System, followed by a Motion on the Inland Post Regulations.

The debate on the Address will be brought to a conclusion on TUESDAY, 5TH NOVEMBER, when, subject to the tabling and selection of Amendments, there will be a debate on the Economic and General Situation.

Afterwards, Motions on the Double Taxation Orders relating to Grenada, Lesotho, Sweden and France.

WEDNESDAY, 6TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Sea Fisheries Bill and of the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill.

Motion on the Schools (Scotland) Code (Amendment No. 1) Regulations.

THURSDAY, 7TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Foreign Compensation Bill and, if there is time, of the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Bill.

FRIDAY, 8TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill.

Motions on the Import Duties (General) (No. 10) Order and on the Countervailing Duty Order.

MONDAY, 11TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Post Office Bill.

Mr. Heath

Yesterday, I pressed the Prime Minister to say whether there would be a statement by him or the Chancellor of the Exchequer about further credit restrictions in the light of the categorical statement by the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, at Bassetlaw, that there was to be no further freeze, no limitation of credit Can the Leader of the House say again categorically that the Chancellor will not now be making a statement to this effect?

Mr. Peart

I cannot at this stage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members must not attribute ulterior motives in any way. If a statement has to be made on a matter, I will make the necessary arrangement.

Mr. Heath

I was not asking the right hon. Gentleman to make the necessary arrangements for the Chancellor to make a statement. I am asking him to confirm to the House, in view of the categorical statement by the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity last night, that the Chancellor will not be making a statement.

Mr. Peart

Certainly, because what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the by-election was perfectly true.

Mr. Heath

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Chancellor will not be making a statement?

Mr. Peart

I have said that if a statement has to be made I will make the arrangements. If there is, in any case, a desire on the part of the Leader of the Opposition for a statement, I will convey it to my right hon. Friends, but I am glad the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity was stating the truth.

Mr. Cant

I have no wish to introduce a note of anticlimax, but is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on Procedure made it clear that most hon. Members would like an early statement about the likely duration of the Whitsun Recess and the expected date of the Summer Recess?

Mr. Peart

I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I say, first, that I think it unlikely that we shall be able to find time for an early debate on the Report of the Select Committee. However, in view of the discussion of the evidence it took, it may be helpful if I say now that, subject to the progress of Government business, it will be our aim to propose an adjournment of two weeks at Whitsun and to adjourn for the next Summer Recess no later than 26th July.

Mr. Thorpe

Will the Leader of the House confirm that the choice of subjects for debate on the Loyal Address is exclusively determined by the official Opposition? That being so, are we to assume that no approach has been made for any debate relating to the Commission which is to be set up on the future government of the country, and that no reference or approach has been made on the future of Ireland, or Wales, or Scotland, or, indeed, of the government of England?

Although the Post Office is a matter of some importance, the fact that we are to have a debate and Prayer next Monday night, and are to have a Second Reading debate on Monday week, leads one to suppose that the Official Opposition are keener on having three separate debates on the Post Office than a debate on the future of the government of the country. That being so—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I want to hear the business question.

Mr. Thorpe

That being so, may I ask the Leader of the House two questions? First, is he aware that the majority of hon. Members and certainly the majority of people in the country would like to debate this matter, even if the Official Opposition would not? Second, is he aware that the selection of subjects inevitably throws open the whole question of the future right of the Opposition to have the exclusive choice of subjects for debate?

Mr. Peart

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is not for me to choose what Amendments are tabled by Her Majesty's Opposition—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or the Liberals."] Or the Liberals. It is for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to decide their priorities. I sympathise with the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), but the selection of Amendments is a matter for the Chair, and I cannot interfere with it.

Mr. McNamara

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what the Leader of the House has said, would you kindly tell the House whether that is the case and that, on Monday and Tuesday, we shall be able only to debate subjects raised by the Official Opposition, and nothing else?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I cannot decide what is to be discussed on Monday or Tuesday. I do not yet know.

Mr. Shinwell

Although it is traditional that the subjects for debate are usually those selected by the official Opposition, in the circumstances, if there is a substantial number of hon. Members on this side of the House who wish to debate an important issue which arises out of the Queen's Speech, would it not be advisable for an opportunity to do so to be provided?

Mr. Peart

I note with sympathy what my right hon. Friend says. As I have stated, I do not select Amendments or decide the priorities. The view has been conveyed to me that many of my colleagues and other hon. Members on both sides would like at some time to debate issues of this kind. I accept that but I am bound by the Amendments.

Mr. Heath

Would not the Leader of the House be quite clear about this? The House is able to discuss the whole Queen's Speech and any item in it yesterday, today and tomorrow. For those three, days, they can have a complete discussion. To expect the Opposition to put down an: Amendment about an indication in the Gracious Speech that discussions will begin about setting up a Commission at some time to consider possible changes in the constitution would tax the ingenuity of even the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).

Mr. Peart

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is rather weak in his argument about negotiations and discussions. He is right, though, when he says that any hon. Member has opportunities, even now, to raise this matter.

Mr. Fitt

Will the Leader of the House confirm that, subject to your direction, Mr. Speaker, any hon. Member will have an opportunity today and tomorrow to discuss the most important subject of Northern Ireland, which is now troubling the conscience of the people of the United Kingdom? May I have that confirmation from my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Peart

My hon. Friend has raised this matter before. If he catches Mr. Speaker's eye, he can raise it again. There is nothing to prevent him.

Sir G. Nabarro

Having regard to the Prime Minister's statement yesterday on the economic position, in which he said that corrective action would be taken when needed, can the Leader of the House give us a categorical assurance that, whatever the outcome of the Bassetlaw by-election, there will not be either a Treasury Order to increase Purchase Tax on motor cars laid next week or an Order laid by the Board of Trade to increase the severity of hire-purchase restrictions on motor cars? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has no motor car workers in Bexley. I have a lot in South Worcestershire, and I am very concerned—

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is not part of the business question.

Mr. Peart

I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman's question is not really a business question.

Sir G. Nabarro

It is.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) referred to the possibility of some action being taken next week, surely such a question is a matter for next week's business.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I cannot compel a Minister to answer a question in any way other than the one he chooses.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is known that the Chair cannot ask a Minister to reply in a certain way, but I understood the Chair to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South was out of order in the way in which he put his question. If the Leader of the House is prepared to answer.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman must listen. The Chair did not say that the way in which the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) put his question was out of order, but that the statement at the end of it was not a business question.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House seemed prepared to answer my hon. Friend's question, and it would appear to be in order, as it could happen next week, unless he can give the categorical assurance asked for.

Mr. Speaker

Order. In fact, the Leader of the House apparently intends to answer the question, if the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) will resume his seat.

Mr. Peart

I am always anxious to help when I can. If a statement is necessary, I will see that it is made.

Mr. Orme

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House are very much aggrieved by the way in which the Official Opposition abuse their own position by raising the subject of the 4d. and 5d. post, which is not in the Queen's Speech, thereby preventing hon. Members wishing to discuss the matters of devolution which affect Scotland, Wales, the regions and Northern Ireland from catching Mr. Speaker's eye? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that a Motion to this effect has been put down already in the Table Office and signed by a wide cross-section of hon. Members? Will he use his good offices to see that we debate this vital issue during the debate on the Motion for the Address?

Mr. Peart

I am aware of all the points raised by my hon. Friend. I have great sympathy, but I cannot decide the selection of Amendments or the priorities which have been taken up by the Opposition. As I have said, hon. Members can make their points and argue their respective cases, even on days allocated to debating the Motion for the Address.

Mr. MacArthur

Will there be a statement next week explaining how the duties of the Paymaster-General in relation to devolution do not change the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to devolution?

Mr. Peart

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered this matter last week.

Mr. Heffer

Would the Leader of the House clarify the point that he has just made about hon. Members being able to discuss any subject on Monday, despite the fact that the Opposition have put down a trivial Amendment concerned with the two-tier post? If I wish to discuss the public ownership of the docks, the problems of Northern Ireland, or any other matters which are connected with the Queen's Speech, am I to take it that I shall be able to discuss them, irrespective of the stupid, silly trivial Amendment put down by the Opposition?

Mr. Peart

As I have said, hon. Members have opportunities. I agree with my hon. Friend, and I have great sympathy with his argument. Whether he is able to speak on Northern Ireland or the docks is a matter for Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lubbock

Is it not a monstrous abuse of the privilege—[Interruption.]—of the privilege—[Interruption.] Shut up! Is it not a monstrous abuse of the privilege conferred on the Conservative Opposition to choose the subjects to be discussed in the debate on the Motion for the Address, when time has been devoted already to the 4d. and 5d. post and there is on the Order Paper a Prayer for its annulment which will enable the subject to be discussed for another one and a half hours, for the Official Opposition to choose a whole day for this subject alone, thereby debarring—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask about a matter for which the Leader of the House is responsible.

Mr. Lubbock

Many hon. Members have been talking about a subject on which they feel deeply. Will the Leader of the House, therefore, through the usual channels, consult the Leader of the Opposition and the Tory Chief Whip—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Liberal Chief Whip?"]—to see whether they would agree to devote half a day on Monday to the Post Office, thus allowing hon. Members who wish to discuss the constitutional Commission to do so in time set aside for the purpose, and not intervene in important debates on foreign affairs, defence, education and social security which we agree should take place?

Mr. Peart

As I have said, I have great sympathy with the view expressed by the hon. Member. Fortunately, I am not responsible for the strange behaviour of the Opposition.

Mr. Shinwell

On a point of order. In my judgment, this is really a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. If the position is that on Monday we are to be confined to a debate on the Amendment submitted by the Opposition on the 4d. and 5d. post, and that no other matter can be raised, surely that is curtailing and confining the debate to what is, after all, not a trivial matter, but a less important matter than some of the matters that hon. Members wish to raise.

Mr. Speaker

It is not a matter for me. I can know nothing about an Amendment which is not yet on the Order Paper. If there is an Amendment on the Order Paper on Monday, and that Amendment is selected, it will restrict the debate, as the right hon. Member has said.

Mr. Thorpe

On a further point of order. Since you, Mr. Speaker, are the protector not only of the rights of minorities, but the rights of majorities, in this House, would it be in order for you to invite the Leader of the Opposition to state whether he will accede to the reasonable request that a certain time should be set aside on Monday for a debate on devolution so that we are not exclusively debating the Post Office, which we will in any event be debating in a full day's debate on the Monday following?

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman has said that I am the protector of the rights of majorities as well as minorities. That is indeed true. Whether he represents a majority opinion at the moment, I do not know. I have no means of knowing. But Mr. Speaker cannot be drawn into the conflict between the multiplicity of parties in the House.

Mr. Michael Foot

Further to that point of order. As you have already indicated to the House, Mr. Speaker, Monday's business has not yet been decided. It still remains to be decided by your decision. Could you, therefore, enlighten us on two points? First, is it automatic, when the Opposition set down an Amendment on the Queen's Speech, that it should be selected? Secondly, is it automatic, when they have two Amendments, that both should be selected?

Is it not possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to take into account whether other provisions are made for debates upon these matters? If it is to be assumed as automatic that the Opposition Amendment shall be selected, even though they are pre-empting other debates, it means that they only need to put down a further series of trivial Amendments to prevent the House conducting the rest of its affairs. Will you take this into account in considering which Amendment shall be taken on Monday?

Mr. Speaker

Obviously, I will take into account the hon. Member's remarks now, the similar remarks which he made last year, and the very careful and sympathetic Ruling which I gave on this whole issue last year. It will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1967, Vol. 753, c. 846.

Sir R. Cary

Surely more time ought to be devoted to general debate on the Address, particularly as it contains matters of deep fundamental constitutional importance. Would it not be in the best interests of the House if we had more general debate?

Mr. Peart

I think that the hon. Gentleman, who has had long experience, ought to address his remarks to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Heffer

The right hon. Gentleman cannot think beyond the Post Office.

Mr. Ogdea

Is the Leader of the House aware that a little practical help would be better than the sympathy that he has offered? Will he say what proposals he has to restore the ancient rights and privileges of hon. Members of the House: that an hon. Member, subject to catching Mr. Speaker's eye, may speak about anything that is or is not in the Queen's Speech?

Mr. Peart

My hon. Friend must know the procedure relating to Amendments which are put down. Mr. Speaker has already made a statement on this matter. But hon. Members can, even now, if they catch Mr. Speaker's eye, raise any matters they wish.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I should like to raise with the Leader of the House two matters concerning Select Committees in this Session.

First, may we have an undertaking that, as soon as possible—preferably next week—the Leader of the House will put on the Order Paper those Members selected to be reappointed to Select Committees, particularly the Select Committee on Science and Technology which is in mid-stream of a major inquiry?

Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that, as soon as possible, we shall have an opportunity to discuss the staffing of these Select Committees?

Mr. Peart

Certainly. Concerning the composition of and appointment to Select Committees, I shall do this as quickly as possible. We are having discussions about it now.

I will look into the staffing of Committees, because this is an important matter which affects the first question.

Mr. Rankin

Assuming that a portion of Monday is devoted to a debate on devolution, could my right hon. Friend assure us that a Government Front Bench speaker will reply?

Mr. Peart

If the debate was divided into parts, as my hon. Friend suggests, obviously a Minister would watch it and probably intervene.

Mr. G. Campbell

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) about there having been time available to discuss the two-tier post, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only time available so far was the short period of my Adjournment debate on the subject? It is because the Postmaster General's reply on that occasion was totally inadequate that a debate is now urgently needed.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot anticipate or go back to another debate at business question time.

Mr. W. Baxter

On a point of order. I am in some difficulty about your Ruling in this matter, Mr. Speaker, and the remarks of the Leader of the House. If I heard him correctly, in giving us the business for next week my right hon. Friend said quite clearly that we would be discussing the postal service. If I heard you correctly, Mr. Speaker, you do not seem to be aware of such an Amendment being placed before the House. How can the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week without first having consultation with Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

These are mysteries beyond Mr. Speaker. I am guided by the Order Paper.

Mr. Atkinson

Further to that point of order.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I would remind the House that we have an important debate ahead. Mr. Atkinson.

Mr. Atkinson

The Leader of the House has stated for the third time that whoever catches Mr. Speaker's eye on Monday can speak about matters which concern him most. You, Mr. Speaker, have suggested that if an Amendment is accepted by yourself it will, of necessity, restrict the debate. Could you tell us how much weight we should put on these two opinions during the debate?

Mr. Speaker

I can only answer factually, and Mr. Speaker must know the answer. If Mr. Speaker selects an Amendment, that Amendment will be discussed until it is disposed of. Until then nothing else can be debated except the Amendment.

Mr. Baxter

Further to that point of order. I beg of you, Mr. Speaker, to clarify the matter. I understood you to say that you are not aware of an Amendment moved by the Official Opposition which the Leader of the House has told us will be debated on Monday. I should like to know how and where the Leader of the House obtains the authority to tell us what will be debated on Monday without Mr. Speaker being aware of an Amendment that my right hon. Friend suggests will be debated.

Mr. Speaker

The Leader of the House cannot tell the House the form of the debate on Monday until the Order Paper appears and Mr. Speaker has ruled on it.

Sir C. Osborne

On Tuesday's business, since so many hon. Members on both sides will wish to take part in the debate on economic affairs, which is more important than anything else and affects our constituents more clearly, will the Leader of the House consider giving an extra hour or two hours' debate on that matter?

Mr. Peart

It might be convenient if we can get agreement on whether to take it out of Monday's Post Office debate.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

As my right hon. Friend is assuming that this irresponsible exercise by the Opposition is in order, and also that the Amendment will be accepted by Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether that means there will be four Front Bench speeches during Monday's debate, all concerned with the two-tier system?

Mr. Peart

Not necessarily.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

I remind the House that we have an important debate ahead of us.

Mr. Brooks

Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to clarify the position which might arise on Monday should these matters relating to the two-tier post take a relatively short time to dispose of? In the interests of the House, hon. Members might then seek to have the Question put at perhaps a somewhat early hour of the evening. In that event will it be possible for the House to turn to more important matters for the remainder of the evening?

Mr. Speaker

I cannot rule on hypotheses.

Mr. Marten

Reverting to the question of the eve-of-poll speech by the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he recalls that in a previous eve-of-poll speech at Hull the same Minister promised the construction of a bridge across the Humber, but it never materialised? Would it not therefore be sensible if, next week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer reaffirmed the speech quite frankly to the House?

Mr. Peart

I have given an answer. In any case, the Chancellor will be speaking during the economic debate.

Mr. McNamara

May I ask my right hon. Friend to ask the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) to read what my right hon. Friend the First Secretary said during that famous occasion in Hull? If we are not to have an opportunity to discuss first- and second-class citizenship in Northern Ireland, but only first- and second-class mail, may I ask my right hon. Friend to say when we can hope to discuss this important constitutional Commission?

Secondly, can my right hon. Friend give a more precise indication of when we can expect the White Paper on port reorganisation?

Mr. Peart

I think that there might be an opportunity to arrange a day's debate on Northern Ireland matters. I cannot be specific about time, but there should be such a debate. I cannot be precise about the publication of the White Paper on ports.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

Reverting to the matter raised a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government recognise, and propose to adhere to, the important principle that during the sittings of Parliament statements are made first to Parliament so that they can be subject to the salutary processes of strong and penetrating interrogation?

Mr. Peart

I do not dissent from that principle. I always try to get, and on numerous occasions I have succeeded in getting, my colleagues to come to the House to make statements on policy.

Mr. Winnick

If the reports in the Press are correct that the Minister responsible is soon to go to Rhodesia, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether there will be an announcement or a statement in the House before he goes, if, unfortunately, he does decide to go?

Mr. Peart

If an announcement is necessary, I shall convey that view to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is sitting near me.

Mr. Kirk

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall debate the Prayer against Statutory Instrument No. 1623? In view of the vast constitutional issues which it raises, may we have a little more time than is usual to debate it?

Mr. Peart

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I shall bear in mind its importance.

Dr. Gray

As my right hon. Friend was so liberal in finding time to discuss Scottish and Welsh affairs, may I ask him to find time to discuss the Report of the East Anglian Planning Council?

Mr. Peart

I note what my hon. Friend has said. We must all bear in mind that there are important regions in England.

Sir D. Renton

Would not it be a good idea to provide an extra day's debate next week for the debate on the Address so that we may discuss a number of matters mentioned by hon. Members this afternoon, which at the moment there will be no time to discuss, and also a further matter which ought to be discusesd while memories are still fresh, namely, the havoc caused by the recent floods and the difficulty of taking action to deal with them?

Mr. Peart

I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have a discussion with his Leader on that, in relation to Monday's business.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

As traders outside have recognised the activities which usually precede the tightening of consumer spending, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider an extension of business on Monday night so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can make a categorical statement on this?

Secondly, may I ask whether the Bassetlaw statement by his right hon. Friend was confirmed and approved by the Paymaster-General?

Mr. Peart

What is important is that it was true. That is what I was asked and pressed for. I cannot give a promise.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

Due to the refusal of the Joint Committee administering the Forth Bridge to raise the tolls on the bridge at the Secretary of State's instructions, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to guarantee that the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a statement in the House before he forces through these increases? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the 1964 Labour Party election manifesto in Scotland called these tolls "indefensible".

Mr. Speaker

Order. No drifting into merits, even on bawbees.

Mr. Peart

The hon. Gentleman has stressed the importance of the Forth Bridge. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is well aware of this matter.

Mr. David Steel

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this morning at least three national newspapers described the constitutional Commission as the most important and significant item in the whole of the Queen's Speech? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore protect us from the idiocy of the Opposition and give a day out of Government time if the Opposition will not change the programme?

Mr. Peart

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. This is an important part of the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Faulds

As the Official Opposition are in the process yet again, under their present leadership, of making a fool of themselves on Monday—[Interruption.]—is it not a relief to find that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not quite as moribund as they look?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member has been in the House long enough to be able to ask a business question.

Mr. Faulds

As the Official Opposition are in the process, once again, under their- present leadership, of making a fool of themselves about Monday's business—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Repetition of a non-business question does not make it a business question. Business question. Mr. Faulds.

Mr. Faulds

I have given my preface. Perhaps I might now ask my question. Will my right hon. Friend consider approaching the Tory Chief Whip, who is more sensible and responsible in these matters than his leader, about the possibility of new arrangements for Monday?

Mr. Peart

I am prepared to discuss this through the usual channels.

Mr. Onslow

Whatever the result of the Bassetlaw by-election, should not the House have a statement next week on whether the remarks of the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity at Bassetlaw were a lightly given promise, or a pledge?

Mr. Peart

I have replied to this question already. There is to be an economic debate, when the Chancellor will be speaking.