HC Deb 10 December 1970 vol 808 cc677-82
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw)

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 14TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Industrial Relations Bill, which will be concluded on Tuesday, 15th December.

At the end on Monday:

Remaining stages of the Air Corporations Bill, the Motion on the West Midlands (Amendment) Order and consideration of a Lords Amendment which it is expected will be received to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

At the end on Tuesday:

Remaining stages of the Civil Aviation (Declaratory Provisions) Bill and of the Local Authorities (Qualification of Members) Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 16TH DECEMBER—SeCOrid Reading of the Land Commission (Dissolution) Bill.

Motions on the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order and on the Judges' Remuneration (No. 2) Order.

THURSDAY, 17TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Atomic Energy Authority Bill.

Motions on the Farm Amalgamation and Farm Structure Schemes.

The House has agreed to adjourn on Friday, 18th December until Tuesday. 12th January, 1971.

Mr. Harold Wilson

First, on today's arrangements, which can profoundly affect the arrangements for next week. Following the initiative of Mr. Victor Feather this morning with the unions concerned in the electricity dispute, I understand that he has already called upon the Secretary of State for Employment and that the right hon. Gentleman is to meet the unions concerned at, I think, 4.30 this afternoon. The House is expecting a statement from the right hon. Gentleman. This was volunteered last night. If I am right about the difficulties in the timetable, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to arrange for us to have the statement by his right hon. Friend immediately after the Business Statement has been dealt with rather than wait, as I think would normally be the situation, until we have had the statement from the Chancellor of the Duchy, who, I think, on grounds of practice, precedence, protocol, and the rest, would speak first? If we can be assured that the Secretary of State for Employment will be able to speak at the scheduled time, that is all right. If not, it will be most unfortunate if the right hon. Gentleman has to intervene in the debate later in the day. So will the Leader of the House accord such flexibility as he can between Ministerial statements to make sure that we may hear from the Secretary of State?

If the right hon. Gentleman has to report what I think he has to report, on what I have heard, the Leader of the House can be assured that we shall not want to press the notice, which I mentioned last night, for a debate under Standing Order No. 9 if all the activities following Mr. Feather's intervention are going as I understand them to be.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, on arms for South Africa, we on this side, since the time when that matter was debated in July, have shown considerable forbearance in not pressing it unduly on the Prime Minister and on the Foreign Secretary, because we are more concerned with getting the right result—namely, no shipments—than making the obvious points which can be made in debate. We would prefer this matter to be deferred if we are to get the right answer. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that there will be no decision taken and no statement made in the next recess—we had that promise for the last recess—but only when the House is sitting? This would mean that if the Prime Minister intends to announce a decision, which we hope will be the right decision, at the Singapore Commonwealth Conference, the House will be sitting and it can then be explained to us. But if there is to be any statement when the House is not sitting, may we have an assurance that a statement will be made next week on the Government's decision?

Mr. Whitelaw

On the first point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, may I say that I am grateful to him for putting that proposition to the House, because it enables me to respond in the affirmative. Provided that it is acceptable to you, Mr. Speaker, when the Business is completed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will answer the next question.

On the second point, I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. The assurances have been given. Concerning a decision being announced and a statement made to this House, those assurances stand.

Mr. Harold Wilson

On the last point, do I understand that there will, therefore, be no decision announced during the recess? I understood the right hon. Gentleman to mean that the assurance given for the last recess applies for the next recess. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it will be after the House comes back or whether we shall have a statement next week?

Mr. Whitelaw

I think that I gave the positive assurance for which I was asked, that when any decision is announced, a statement will be made to this House. I stand by that assurance.

Mr. George Thomas

Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday in the Welsh Grand Committee the Government sustained an overwhelming defeat—[Interruption.] It is not unimportant in Wales.

Is the Leader of the House aware that the Government's social and economic policy for Wales was completely rejected by a vote of 25 to 10 in the Welsh Grand Committee? Will he therefore ask his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether he cares to make a statement next week on Government policy in Wales; and, further, whether his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, whose policy was rejected, is considering his position.

Mr. Whitelaw

These are essentially matters for the Welsh Grand Committee.

Mr. George Thomas

Oh, no!

Mr. Whitelaw

I think I am wise to say that. It has always seemed to me exceptionally unwise that a Scotsman who represents an English constituency should pronounce on Welsh matters.

Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The House will have heard that an important statement lies ahead. There is a time limit. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will restrain their Business questions.

Mr. Bagier

Would the right hon. Gentleman invite the Prime Minister or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement next week about an apparent change of attitude in the practice of meeting back benchers? Is he aware that the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friend have refused to meet a deputation of Labour hon. Members representing Northern constituencies—a group of 29 Northern hon. Members—unless that group includes Conservative back benchers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to state clearly whether this is a change of procedure which goes against the basic principles of this House and against past practice?

Mr. Whitelaw

As far as I know, there has certainly been no change of principle or past practice. I understand that it was suggested that the matters concerned might well be discussed by an all-party group. It was suggested that that might be a good idea.

Mr. Ross

Is it the intention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement to the House about his decisions in respect of the Hunterston inquiry? Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to him our desire that he should tell us about it rather than that we should read about it in the Press?

Mr. Whitelaw

I think I am right in saying that it is not the practice of Ministers to announce planning decisions of this kind to the House. It is perfectly true that it is a very complicated report and a considerable decision. My right hon. Friend has placed copies of the document in the Library, and, naturally, hon. Members will be able to pursue him with Questions later. In the meantime, I believe that he is acting entirely in accordance with precedent in not, on very detailed and complicated matters, making a statement to the House.

Mr. Peart

Returning to the question of the delegation comprised of Northern hon. Members to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) referred, may I press the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter sympathetically? I am sure that he will agree that one must not be rigid about this sort of thing. It is right that groups of this kind should be seen by Ministers, and I always made a point of meeting Conservative hon. Members when I was a Minister. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will examine this matter carefully.

Mr. Whitelaw

In response to the right hon. Gentleman, I will, of course, look into the matter and investigate all the circumstances of the various cases. I would only add that I am personally perfectly ready to see hon. Members either together or individually. The only trouble is that I have so many to see but never enough hours in the day in which to fit them all in quickly.

Mr. Edward Short

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the principle goes a little further than merely suggesting that it would be a good idea for there to be an all-party meeting? In fact, the Secretary of State for the Environment has written a letter in which he refuses to meet this northern group of Labour hon. Members unless they are accompanied by Conservative hon. Members. [Interruption.] Is not this a break with long-standing practice?

Mr. Whitelaw

I would, before saying any more, like to look into the point which the right hon. Gentleman raises.

Mr. Rankin

Reverting to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I understand from the Press that the Secretary of State for Scotland intends to make an initial statement in Glasgow. That may be regarded as a compliment to Glasgow, it being the chief industrial centre of Scotland, but will it prevent the right hon. Gentleman from making a statement in the House at the appropriate time?

Mr. Whitelaw

I think I would be wise to stick to the answer which I gave to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and say that it has normally been the practice that planning decisions of a complicated and detailed nature should not be announced in statements to the House. It would be a pity to change that practice.

Mr. Palmer

Returning to the question of Ministers seeing back benchers, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it has not always been understood that in this matter, Ministers are deputies for the Crown? Do they not have an absolute obligation to meet hon. Members at any time that is mutually convenient?

Mr. Whitelaw

I will certainly look into the various questions that have been raised on this issue. I have no reason to suppose that there has been any possible change in practice. Ministers of this Government are extremely anxious to meet hon. Members when they are requested to do so.