HC Deb 14 January 1971 vol 809 cc262-71
Mr. Harold Wilson

May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw)

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

MONDAY, 18TH JANUARY—Progress On the Committee stage of the Industrial Relations Bill.

TUESDAY, 19TH JANUARY—Until Seven o'clock, Supply (8th Allotted Day) (First Part). A debate on Herr Rudi Dutschke, which will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House. Afterwards, further progress on the Committee stage of the Industrial Relations Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 20TH JANUARY—A debate on the Common Market, which will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and will be continued on THURSDAY, 21ST JANUARY—the 9th Allotted Supply Day—when it will be proposed that the Winter Supplementaries should be taken formally.

At the end on Wednesday, the remaining stages of the Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Bill and Second Reading of the Guardianship of Minors Bill [Lords], which is a Consolidation Measure.

At the end on Thursday, the remaining stages of the Guardianship of Minors Bill [Lords].

FRIDAY, 22ND JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY, 25TH JANUARY—Further progress on the Committee stage of the Industrial Relations Bill.

Mr. Harold Wilson

Is the Leader of the House aware that we are grateful to him for making some rearrangements in the original proposals for business for next week to allow for additional debates? He will be aware that for the Common Market debate we on this side have given a Supply Day to give the very large number of hon. Members in all parts of the House who want to take part a chance of doing so. Even so, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even two days will not be sufficient to get anything like all of them in? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to discuss through the usual channels whether we might have an extra hour on the first day, even if it means rearranging business?

Mr. Whitelaw

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for what he said on the start of his question. I fully recognise that, to the general conveniece of the House, the Opposition have decided to give one of their Supply Days to the Common Market debate. I am certainly prepared to discuss through the usual channels the possibility of extending the debate by an hour on the first day.

Mr. Fox

In view of the growing concern about training boards generally, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Motion No. 177 which concerns the Road Transport Industry Training Board?

[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Industrial Training Levy (Road Transport) Order 1970 (S.I., 1970, No. 1062), dated 16th July, 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th July, be annulled.]

In particular, it would be helpful if we could have an early debate on this Motion.

Mr. Whitelaw

I note the importance of the subject that my hon. Friend raises in the Motion. He will be the first to appreciate that the Order against which he wishes to pray is now out of time for being prayed against. Nevertheless, I am perfectly prepared to consider the possibility that he suggests.

Mr. Orme

The right hon. Gentleman told the House that the debate on the Common Market will take place on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House. Therefore, there will be no substantive Motion before the House. Why are not the Government prepared to put their policy on the Order Paper so that an expression of opinion may be made in the House and so that the people of Europe and the negotiators know the strength of feeling for or against the Market?

Mr. Whitelaw

This Government are following the precedent set by their predecessors—namely, that during the negotiations it is perfectly reasonable that there should be an exploratory debate and a discussion of the stage which has been reached. The House, and I think the country in general, appreciates that the discussions and the negotiations should be completed before a final decision on the question can be taken. This next week's debate is the exploratory debate during the course of the negotiations for which the House has asked. I believe it is wholly proper that such a debate should take place on very much of an exploratory Motion such as a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Benyon

Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that a debate on the Roskill recommendations as to the site of the proposed third London airport will take place before the Government reach a decision on this question?

Mr. Whitelaw

I can give my hon. Friend that positive assurance.

Mr. C. Pannell

Is the Lord President of the Council aware that we understand that he has been preoccupied recently with getting a new occupant into the Chair. However, will he now bring his powerful mind to bear on the problem of implementing the Report of the Committee of Privileges which has been hanging about for too many years for me to remember?

Mr. Whitelaw

I will not respond to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question beyond saying that I note what he has said. On the second part, I am very anxious, as soon as I can possibly manage it, to give the House an opportunity to pronounce on the various proposals in the Report of the Committee of Privileges. I believe that this is a House of Commons matter. I believe that it would be right for the House to have an opportunity to say how it believes that it would be best to proceed. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that some of these matters would need minor legislation, and that might take some time. Some of them can be done without legislation. I am anxious to proceed by agreement as far as possible and then leave the House the opportunity to decide how best it wishes to proceed for the future.

Mr. Hastings

In view of the Motion in my name and the names of 170 right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House on the subject of the third London airport, can my right hon. Friend go a little further and tell us how soon the debate will take place after the publication of the full Report of the Roskill Commission? Is not any delay bound to increase the considerable distress that so many people living in the area now feel?

[That this House, while recognising the need for a third London Airport, is totally opposed to the choice of any inland site, or to the extension of any existing airport for this purpose; and strongly advocates the selection of Foulness or any other suitable coastal site.]

Mr. Whitelaw

I note the strength of feeling expressed in my hon. Friend's Motion. I think that I have gone as far as I should at this stage. I gave a positive and absolute assurance that there will be a debate before any Government decision is reached and that, therefore, the House itself will have an opportunity to put its views forward before any Government decision is made.

Mr. Pavitt

As the Bill I introduced yesterday—the Prevention of Diseases due to Smoking Bill—follows very closely the recommendations of the Royal College of Physicians, and as this is a highly controversial matter, will the Leader of the House give some consideration to the further stages of this Bill and discuss with the Secretary of State for Social Services the possibility of having a free vote on the Floor of the House at a later stage so that the will of the House can be tested?

Mr. Whitelaw

I certainly recognise the importance of the matter which the hon. Gentleman's Bill raises, a matter of which, curiously enough, I myself have absolutely no personal experience. I therefore find it difficult to judge one way or the other. The hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has another Bill on this matter.

Sir G. Nabarro

A senior Bill.

Mr. Whitelaw

I do not know what is meant by "a senior Bill". At any rate, it is a Bill which got in before the hon. Gentleman's Bill. The hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate that my hon. Friend's Bill raises some of the problems which are raised by his Bill. This is obviously a very important matter and one which no doubt the House will wish to debate at some future date. I cannot give an assurance about any particular Bill at this stage.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

May I ask my right hon. Friend not to underestimate the very strong support there is for the point put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) about training boards? Does he recollect that my hon. Friend in fact prayed against the Order within the specified 40 days and that it was only the incidence of the Christmas Recess which prevented the Prayer from being taken?

Mr. Whitelaw

I was only stating the fact as it is today in my original answer. I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. I will look into the matter. I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) earlier, that of course I appreciate the importance of this matter and I will see what can be done about it.

Mr. Mackie

I am sure the Leader of the House has noted the rather alarming report about soil structure. Does not this report warrant debate before the Agricultural Price Review?

Mr. Whitelaw

I have noted the report and appreciate its importance. I cannot give an assurance about any time for a debate on it in the near future.

Mr. Jopling

In Tuesday's debate on Herr Dutschke, to what extent will it be possible to raise broader issues and, in particular, to ask the Home Secretary what action he intends to take about people of foreign nationality who seem to take refuge in Britain to disrupt our way of life?

Mr. Whitelaw

My hon. Friend will be the first to appreciate that what is in order in any debate is a matter for Mr. Speaker and not one for me. On the other hand, as the debate is to take place on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, it is clearly a very wide Motion as far as order is concerned.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

In view of what the Home Secretary said in reply to a Question earlier, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement on a convenient day next week presenting to the House the Treasury evidence to the Wilberforce Court of Inquiry in order that we may do exactly what the Home Secretary said that he would welcome—so that the Government may defend it and the Chancellor may be questioned on it?

Mr. Whitelaw

I will certainly convey to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the right hon. Gentleman wishes a statement on this matter to be made next week. I will put to my right hon. Friend what has been said, obviously at this stage without commitment.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg

Does my right hon. Friend recall that, just before Christmas, I asked him whether he would find it possible to arrange time for a short debate upon decimalisation and the sixpence? As there is now less than a month to go before D-day, can he add to what he said then?

Mr. Whitelaw

I note the importance of the subject, and there is considerable publicity attending it at present. I could not promise time for a debate before decimalisation day.

Mr. William Hamilton

May I revert to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins)? Since the Deputy Prime Minister indicated that we could question Ministers on the Treasury evidence to the Committee of Inquiry, would it not be more desirable if the Government published a White Paper setting out all that evidence so that we might consider it in our own time and in our own way and then put more meaningful questions as a result?

Mr. Whitelaw

The evidence will be published, and it can be carefully considered in that way. I think that what my right hon. Friend clearly had in mind, and fairly had in mind, was that once a statement of this sort has been made it is perfectly possible for right hon. and hon. Members on either side to put down Questions about it. That may certainly be done. I recognise also that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stechford asked for a statement next week, and, as I said, I shall convey that request to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Lawson

The right hon. Gentleman will recall the debate which we had on the Select Committees of the House. When does he propose to set up the outstanding Select Committees already agreed, notably the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?

Mr. Whitelaw

As soon as I can possibly do so.

Mr. Maude

Reverting to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) about a particular industrial training board Order, is my right hon. Friend aware that there is serious concern throughout the country about the operations of a number of industrial training boards, in particular, that in the building and construction industry? Would he agree that there might be a case for having before long a general debate on the operation of the Industrial Training Act, with a view, possibly, to the House expressing a feeling on the question of amending that legislation?

Mr. Whitelaw

I recognise the considerable importance of the matter, and from my own past I have certain knowledge of the subject which my hon. Friend raises. At some stage, a debate of the sort which he proposes would be desirable, but I cannot promise time for it in the near future in view of the considerable amount of other business which must come before the House.

Mr. Molloy

Will the Leader of the House try to help a number of hon. Members in a problem which is causing some disquiet? The Prime Minister is on record as designating certain Ministers to answer Questions about prices, yet, when hon. Members put down Questions about prices, the Minister of Agriculture, in particular, refuses point-blank to answer them. Will the Leader of the House see what he can do to help hon. Members in this matter, have the Prime Minister's pledge honoured, and have the Minister of Agriculture do his duty to the House?

Mr. Whitelaw

Naturally, without investigating the position, I cannot accept all that the hon. Gentleman says, but I shall look into the circumstances and see what can be done.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles

As there is much concern about immigration policy and, in particular, the effect which any changes might have upon our relation with Australia, will my right hon. Friend try to arrange a debate on the whole subject before the Government's Bill is published?

Mr. Whitelaw

I could not promise time for a debate on the subject before the Bill is published.

Mr. Barnett

The right hon. Gentleman will, perhaps, recall that a little earlier, on the question of the Wilberforce Court of Inquiry, the Home Secretary said that we would be the first to complain if a Minister went before an impartial court of inquiry and presented Government evidence. Do we take that to mean that the civil servant who will be going will not be presenting Government evidence, and, if that be so, will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make it clear in his statement next week?

Mr. Whitelaw

I think that I should be wise on this occasion to confine myself to my job, which is to discuss the business for next week. I have already promised that I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the wish of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stechford and other hon. Members that he should make a statement next week, and questions of policy can, of course, always be discussed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir G. Nabarro

On the question of smoking, speaking as a convert to a total abstainer, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he now realises that there is a Bill from the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), there is my Bill, and there is Early Day Motion No. 186, all bearing on the Report of the Royal College of Physicians, yet we are totally without a statement on Government policy from any Cabinet Minister. Could we not have a statement next week from the Secretary of State for Social Services defining Government policy in this matter?

[That this House notes the direct link between smoking and lung cancer, also between smoking and other diseases; and therefore calls upon the Government to introduce early legislation to prohibit the advertising and promotion of cigarettes, cigars and pipe tobacco.]

Mr. Whitelaw

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for spelling out the exact position of the various moves regarding smoking. Perhaps, not for the first or the last time, I expressed myself a little clumsily in my previous answer. As regards the future, I shall tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services what my hon. Friend has proposed. I could not commit him to a statement, but I shall ensure that what my hon. Friend says is brought to his attention.

Sir G. Nabarro

I am very grateful.