§ 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:
TUESDAY, 3RD FEBRUARY—Supply [9th Allotted Day]:
Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on an Opposition Motion on Unemployment.
Afterwards, a debate on Smokeless Zones and Pollution, also on an Opposition Motion.
Motion on the Awards and Settlements (Temporary Continuation Standstill) (No. 3) Order, 1969.
THURSDAY, 5TH FEBRUARY—Supply [10th Allotted Day]:
Debate on a Motion to take note of the 8th Report from the Estimates Committee in Session, 1967–68, on Grants for the Arts and the related Departmental Observations.
Motion on the British Transport (Compensation to Employees) Regulations.
FRIDAY, 6TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 9TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Equal Pay (No. 2) Bill.
Motion relating to Sunday Cinematograph Entertainments in Runcorn.
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I remind the House that there is important business ahead. It would help on Thursday if hon. Members would forgo the pleasure of asking business questions unless they were very necessary.
§ Sir C. Taylor
In view of the unfortunate accident that the Prime Minister has suffered, and because he 1721 travelled back from the United States only a short time ago, may I ask the Leader of the House whether we could have a subsidiary statement about all that the Prime Minister discussed with the President of the United States some time next week so that some of us can ask a few more questions? The time for such questions today was very short.
§ [That this House deplores the criticism by the hon. Member for Bosworth on the Director of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Editor of The Times which contained the insinuation that their request for the utmost urgency in providing relief for the starving people in the area of the former Republic of Biafra was solely conditioned by their Roman Catholic faith and reminds hon. Members that criticism of persons on grounds of their religious faith is contrary to the established practice of the House.]
§ May I ask whether we can have a debate on this subject, to re-establish the principle that has never been changed in the, House over the years, namely, that religious issues should never be introduced into political subjects when certain persons are mentioned?
§ Mr. Peart
I have seen the Motion in the name of my right hon. Friend. I cannot promise him a debate, even though I have sympathy with the main principle contained in the last few words of the Motion—criticism of persons on grounds of their religious faith is contrary to the established practice of the House.I note what my right hon. Friend has said, but I cannot find time.
§ Sir Harmar Nicholls
Will the Leader of the House next week try to bring some consistency to the way that supplementary questions are answered? The right hon. Lady the First Secretary of State, in answer to Question No. 1, said that she could not deal with the supplementary although it flowed from what was on the Order Paper. Yet Question No. 2 had two supplementaries which had nothing whatever to do with the first Question and were obviously planted by 1722 her hon. Friend, so upsetting the spontaneity of Question Time.
The hon. Gentleman knows from his long experience, including that as a junior Minister, that this is the responsibility of the Minister.
§ Mr. Dalyell
In view of the publication last week by the Minister of Technology of his Green Paper on Industrial Research in Government Laboratories, could not the Leader of the House kill two birds with one stone by having, in a debate on it, the long-awaited debate on defence research establishments?
§ Mr. Iremonger
Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Industrial Training Bill is likely to be debated? Will it be weeks rather than months?
§ Mr. Wellbeloved
In view of the strong support from both sides of the House on the subject of last evening's Adjournment debate, will my right hon. Friend find time for an announcement next week by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, reprieving the Navy's rum ration?
§ [That this House is of opinion that while a marina in or near Brighton is desirable the place authorised for the proposed marina at Black Rock was chosen without adequate scientific advice and is, in the opinion of yachtsmen, relevant experts and scientists, unsuitable and dangerous to ships and human life as being on a rocky, storm-swept lee shore without a protective river estuary or other appropriate coast indentation and is also without access roads, facilities or amenities, thereby involving the necessary construction of many new roads and the consequent destruction of dwelling-houses and also dangerous inconvenience to fire-brigades, schools, old people's, nurses' and other homes, all involving financial loss and burdens on ratepayers and residents; and therefore this House urges the Government to set up an expert and authoritative inquiry with a view to changing the marina site and amending or repealing the Brighton Marina Act 1968 so as to make it consonant with the safety, financial security and social benefit of the people of Brighton, the queen of seaside resorts, and others who appreciate its beauty and charms.]
§ My right hon. Friend will recall that when I asked him about this last week he said that I would have time to say all that I wanted to say when the Bill was introduced. My Motion refers not to the Bill, but to the repeal of an Act of Parliament.