BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

HC Deb 21 January 1971 vol 809 cc1274-98

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, 25TH JANUARY—Consideration of a Timetable Motion on the Industrial Relations Bill—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. A certain amount of demonstration of opinion is permissible, but it must be restrained. Mr. Whitelaw.

Mr. Whitelaw

rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Mr. Whitelaw.

Mr. Whitelaw

TUESDAY, 26TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Industry Bill. Remaining stages of the Fire Precautions Bill. Motion on the Shipbuilding Industry Board (Postponement of Dissolution) Order.

WEDNESDAY, 27TH JANUARY and THURSDAY, 28TH JANUARY—Subject to the proceedings on Monday, Industrial Relations Bill: Committee stage (1st and 2nd allotted days).

FRIDAY, 29TH JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY, 1ST FEBRUARY—Industrial Relations Bill: Further progress in Committee.

Mr. Harold Wilson

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the announcement he has made is a totally indefensible use of the Government's powers? Is he aware that he has given very little time in Committee so far—only two days in which progress could be made? Is he further aware that during this period we have severely limited the number of Amendments tabled to those that are relevant to the very wide-ranging and comprehensive changes in industrial law proposed in the Bill, and that we have done all we could to deter excessive debate on those Amendments?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the last day on which we debated this hon. Members on this side of the House were urging faster progress on the Government so that we could get on faster with the Bill? This is not in doubt, and cannot be denied by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. In those circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us what justification he has for putting this proposal at the head of business for next week?

Mr. Whitelaw

I should like to make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government will propose time allocations which, Finance Bills apart, will provide for easily the longest time since the war on a Committee stage on the Floor of the House.

On the timing of the introduction of the Timetable Motion, I should like to make it clear there have been occasions in the past when Labour Governments, and Conservative, have introduced Timetable Motions before the start of a Bill in Committee.

My answer to those who ask about the time allotted is that if the proposals that we put forward are accepted the Bill will be debated for about 150 hours on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Harold Wilson

There are 150 Clauses to the Bill for a start, to say nothing of the long and involved Schedules and the importance of a very high proportion of the Clauses and Schedules. If the right hon. Gentleman worked out in his mind—perhaps he did so before the Committee stage began on Monday, and if he did perhaps he will tell us that—how many days should be allocated, why did he not do what is usually done, and that is discuss whether the Opposition are prepared to work to a voluntary timetable? That is what we frequently did when we were the Government. Has the right hon. Gentleman thought of having a voluntary timetable in this case?

The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that whatever his offers or his calculations, what he is now saying, though we shall obviously have to have discussions, is inadequate for 150 Clauses of a Bill of this degree of importance. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to make inoperable the functioning of the usual channels, which have been very good on this during the last two days, he is going the right way about it.

Mr. Whitelaw

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman, or anyone else, can accuse me, whatever else they may accuse me of, of not having a belief in the usual channels. Nor does it fall in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman, or anyone else, to accuse me of not having, in the years of his Government, worked extremely hard through the usual channels, and very properly.

I should like to make it perfectly clear, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, that informal discussions—and I am choosing my words very carefully—through the usual channels led me to the simple conclusion that I had to take full responsibility for the decision that I am now putting forward.

Sir D. Renton

Instead of using—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Sir D. Renton

Instead of using a whole valuable parliamentary day for this Timetable Motion, might it not be better to confine it to half a day, and thus perhaps get another half day for discussion of the Bill itself?

Mr. Whitelaw

The Government will make the Bill an effective Order of the Day on Monday, so that if the Timetable Motion is disposed of in less than the full day there will be additional time for the Committee stage of the Bill over and above the days already taken and the proposed number of allotted days if the House agrees to the Motion.

Mrs. Castle

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is one of the most outrageous gags in parliamentary history? Is he aware that I have had no approaches whatsoever from the right hon. Gentleman indicating to me what kind of a timetable he had in mind, whether there was any chance of voluntary co-operation on this side of the House—the kind of offer and approach which was always made by us when dealing with any important Bill? I speak as someone who has worked with the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. Gentlemen opposite on a number of Bills while we were in Government. This is totally unprecedented, to spring this on us without a word of consultation, without a word of discussion, without any provocation whatsoever.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware, and will he not admit, that there has been no filibustering on our side and no attempt by the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else on the Government Front Bench to speed up the proceedings during the two days that we have been discussing—that, on the contrary, there have been speeches of great length both from the back benches and from the Front Bench opposite, which certainly did not suggest that they thought that we were not making rapid enough progress—

Mr. Hastings

On a point of order. Is it not the custom of the House that, even from the Front Bench, statements of this kind should eventually finish up with a question?

Mrs. Castle

rose—

Mr. Atkinson

Further to that point of order. When the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) raises a point of that kind, should he not first declare his own interest? Should he not declare that he is a director of companies with a very bad strike record?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Hastings

Further to that point of order. I am a director of no company, so far as I know, that has ever had a strike on its hands, so perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, could ask the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) to withdraw.

Hon. Members

Withdraw!

Mrs. Castle

rose—

Mr. Atkinson

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that this is the sort of difficulty in which the House gets when we have this sort of point of order and this sort of further point on a point of order.

Mrs. Castle

I repeat—is it not a fact, and will not the right hon. Gentleman have the courtesy to admit, that there has been no refusal by us to respond to any request by him that there should be any expediting of the business? How can he expect those outside the House who care passionately about this Bill to leave the fight on this Bill to Parliament, if he treats Parliament with this contempt?

Mr. Whitelaw

As for the point about consultation, I will stick to the form of words which I used very carefully. As to the question of blame or anything else, I am not interested in blaming anyone or anything—

Mr. William Hamilton

Come off it.

Mr. Whitelaw

Well, I am not!

Mr. Hamilton

Do not come that any more, Willie.

Mr. Whitelaw

I do not suggest that the Opposition have refused, and I accept what the right hon. Lady said—she asked me to accept that and I am accepting it—

Mr. Hamilton

Why did you not ask?

Mr. Whitelaw

As for the form of words which I used at the start, I am sticking to that. I have the duty to this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Only to the Tory Party."]—to provide for orderly debate on this Bill at reasonable hours. This Bill so far has taken 20 hours of debating time on comparatively non-controversial Clauses. I believe that, in those circumstances, I am producing a very reasonable timetable, far longer than any other Committee stage since the war, and that I am in that way doing what is right to provide for a proper and orderly debate at reasonable hours in plenty of time on a most important Bill—and I stick by that belief.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The House is putting the Chair in a difficulty—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, he is doing that."] Any suggestion of a timetable naturally produces strong feelings from one side or the other, but it seems to me that all these arguments which have been used would be very relevant on Monday, when the matter is being discussed, but are not really so relevant today. However, I am obviously in the hands of the House.

Mr. Tapsell

rose—

Mr. Harold Wilson

On a point of order. In a desire to help the Chair get out of the difficulty in which it has been placed not by the House but by the Leader of the House, could I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the parade to the Bar of the House by the usual channels, whether he can now announce any change in Monday's business, or whether he can say that, before proceeding with this, there will be talks through the usual channels about a voluntary timetable?

Mr. Whitelaw

I must stick to the fact that this Motion is on the Order Paper and will be debated on Monday. I have made my decision. I have announced what the Government believe to be right: to that I must stick.

Mr. Harold Wilson

Will the right hon. Gentleman, who claims that there are precedents for guillotine Motions—as there are, of course, in all Governments—give the precedent for imposing a guillotine Motion in a wide-ranging, constitutional Measure—[HON. MEMBERS: "On Monday."] No, will he tell us now what precedent there is for imposing a guillotine at the outset of the Committee stage on a Bill which sets up new courts with very fundamental changes in human rights?

Mr. Whitelaw

As for the precedent of Bills which were instituted at the very start, before any Committee stage at all—

Mr. Harold Wilson

Courts.

Mr. Whitelaw

The first point of the right hon. Gentleman related to any Bill—

Mr. Harold Wilson

No.

Mr. Whitelaw

I am sorry. I thought that he had asked that. I will give him the information about all Bills, dating right back to the war, if he wishes. I will check the point about courts and will come to that on Monday.

Mr. Tapsell

Would my right hon. Friend accept that the country at large will regard the timing and content of his statement about a Timetable Motion which will ensure detailed discussion of all parts of this important Bill as vastly preferable to the timing followed by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) over the Transport Bill, which led to important parts of that Bill never being discussed at all?

Mr. Whitelaw

I accept that the decision to introduce a timetable and the timing of that decision is always extremely difficult. I believe that, in the case of the Transport Bill, what my hon. Friend said is true. I am hoping to avoid that on this occasion.

Mr. Thorpe

One must assume that it is the wish of the majority of the House that there should be a thorough debate on each Clause of this Bill, whatever view may be taken one way or another. The Leader of the Opposition has commended the virtues of voluntary consultation and agreement. The right hon. Gentleman has commended the existence of the usual channels.

All those facts being so, and the somewhat strange altercation which we witnessed at the Bar of the House not perhaps being the best representation of exchanges through the usual channels, would the right hon. Gentleman, who has been flexible in the best sense of the term in trying to meet the wishes of the House, at least consider this—that, between now and tomorrow, there be further discussions to see if it be possible for some voluntary timetable to be agreed? In the event of such discussions being possible and successful, will he make a further statement tomorrow, if it be his wish to amend business for next week?

Mr. Whitelaw

What I will certainly undertake is this: the Motion which the Government will propose will provide for a very large number of days and, therefore, a very large number of hours, for the Committee stage on the Floor of the House. How those hours are allocated among the Clauses will, of course, be a matter for the Business Committee. About how the time should be allocated we are fully prepared to have the fullest discussion.

Mr. Kelley

On a point of order. If the right hon. Gentleman has the right—and I assume that according to the rules of the House he has—to introduce such a Motion, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give a Ruling on whether a Motion of that kind would be in the best interests of the House and the nation and whether it should be accepted in view of the immense public interest which the Bill has aroused? I particularly ask you to rule on this because of the curtailment of discussion that will result from the Motion.

Mr. Speaker

The Chair has many responsibilities, but not to rule on a matter of that kind.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

Despite my interest in the Bill, I do not want to question my right hon. Friend about it. May I ask him to repeat the details of Tuesday's business, because some of us missed them.

Mr. Whitelaw

The business for Tuesday, 26th January, will be the Second Reading of the Industry Bill, remaining stages of the Fire Precautions Bill, and a Motion on the Shipbuilding Industry Board (Postponement of Dissolution) Order.

Mr. Rose

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Government strategy on this has been transparent and that they have imported into the Bill four declaratory Clauses from Landrum-Griffin in the United States in an attempt to force a second reading debate on every issue so as to impose the guillotine? Will he now have consultations through the usual channels to provide for the proper discussion of every one of these Clauses, remembering that this is a constitutional Bill of the highest importance which transfers legislative functions to the judiciary?

Mr. Whitelaw

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's argument about the positioning of the Clauses or his idea about the imposition of a timetable. In fact, I assure him that there is absolutely no truth in that whatever. As for his comments on how the time should be allocated among the Clauses, certainly there can be discussions about that.

Mr. Marsh

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, from the point of view of his hon. Friends, one of the most controversial Measures to be introduced when the Labour Party was in power was the Iron and Steel Bill, which was very long? Would he agree that he himself was able to take part in discussions to ensure that that Measure went through fully discussed, without the guillotine, because the Government of the day leaned over backwards to enable the then Opposition to put their case? Can he give any good reason why this Bill should be treated any differently?

Mr. Whitelaw

I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about the Iron and Steel Bill. I am aware of the position, because I had some part to play in it at that time and I therefore accept what he says on the point. All I am saying in this case is that having acceded to the request of the Opposition that the Committee stage of this Bill should be on the Floor of the House, we are being reasonable in offering some 150 hours of debating time for the Bill on the Floor of the House, which is a considerable time indeed.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Onslow.

Mr. Ashton

On a point of order. May I seek your advice, Mr. Speaker, on an important matter? Is it possible for this Bill now to be transferred to a Committee upstairs which, if necessary, could sit on five days and five nights of the week?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Onslow

When my right hon. Friend recalls the curious mess into which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) got themselves on Amendment No. 386 between five and six o'clock in the morning, does he not consider that he is doing the Opposition a great favour in allowing the Bill to be debated at a time when their spokesmen have their wits about them?

Mr. Whitelaw

It is not really for me to say, though I have noticed that the Opposition do not seem to be very satisfied with what I am proposing now. [Interruption]

Mr. Orme

I consider this matter to be too serious to bandy trivialities with the Government. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that an average of one hour per Clause to discuss the fundamental rights of millions of workers is acceptable? What effect does he think this will have on the trade union movement, which will not be allowed to have its case adequately discussed in Parliament? Is he aware that any future industrial action arising out of this proposal will lie at the door of the Government? You have thrown the gauntlet down—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have not done so at all.

Mr. Orme

I apologise, Mr. Speaker. The Government have thrown the gauntlet down. This is an extremely serious matter for Parliament and the constitution. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the major constitutional Measures of the century will not be properly discussed? [Interruption.] Is he aware that in 1906 a whole year was taken on an important Bill affecting the trade union movement? My final word to him is that we will not accept this position.

Mr. Whitelaw

I appreciate the feelings of the hon. Gentleman, though what he says and the extravagant nature of his attack cannot be justified. Under the proposals which we shall put forward, the House will have 80 hours more of Committee stage plus the 20 hours which we have already had, making 100 in all, and added to that must be the Report stage, Third Reading and debate on Second Reading, not counting any debates there may subsequently be on Amendments from another place. On this basis there will be some 150 hours of debating time on the Floor of the House. Frankly, I believe that this is perfectly adequate to allow hon. Members to put any points of view they wish to put.

Sir G. Nabarro

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the majority of the Conservative Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] If you will shut up I will speak up.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman must not address me in those terms.

Sir G. Nabarro

I apologise at once, Mr. Speaker. If hon. Gentlemen opposite will shut up I will speak up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] Will my right hon. Friend accept that the overwhelming majority of sensible people will strongly support his very reasonable action and the programme which he proposes? Would he turn his mind back to the synthetic indignation displayed by the Leader of the Opposition? Will not a timetable facilitate the Leader of the Opposition being in his place throughout the debate, bearing in mind that he was missing after midnight in every Division that took place on Tuesday night.

Mr. Harold Wilson

The hon. Gentleman should speak for himself.

Sir G. Nabarro

You come and do your job.

Hon. Members

Order.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member must not address me in those terms.

Sir G. Nabarro

I apologise again, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition should come and do his job. He should be present for Divisions—and then he might perhaps cease the practice of leading his party from behind.

Mr. Whitelaw

I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the time I am proposing. I think I am entitled to point out once again that, Finance Bills apart, it will provide for easily the longest Committee stage on the Floor of the House since the war. There will be some 150 hours available to hon. Members, which is surely a considerable time for them to put their points of view. Over and above that, there will surely be sufficient time for an orderly discussion of the Bill as a whole at reasonable hours.

Mr. Bidwell

Notwithstanding the merits or demerits of the length of time which the Leader of the House is now offering for the Bill, will he explain why he did not use the usual civilised democratic procedure of consulting my right hon. Friends on this matter?

Mr. Whitelaw

Because, in all the circumstances, and having considered all the facts, as I am entitled to do, I decided that I was right to proceed in this way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Do not be arrogant."] I am not being arrogant. I repeat once more that, having considered the position in all its aspects, I believe that it was right to proceed in this way and follow the procedure which I have announced, which will allow for debate on Monday on the proposals which I am putting forward.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We have now had half an hour on this point. These matters can be fully discussed on Mon day. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We must move on. Ballot for Notices of Motion—

Mr. Wellbeloved

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am greatly reluctant to rise to a point of order on this matter, Sir, out of respect for your decision, but it is a matter of the utmost importance to the country and to the House. The Leader of the House has repeatedly told us that he has a responsibility to all the House. In adopting the cloak of a party politician and accepting responsibility for denying the right of the House freely and adequately to debate this vastly important constitutional Bill, the right hon. Gentleman is putting in an invidious position those on this side of the House and those outside, too, who have been trying to persuade all elements of the nation not to respond by unconstitutional action to provocation from the Government benches.

In my point of order, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to allow the pressure on the Leader of the House to continue, in the hope that he may, in the interests of the country, reverse his decision regarding the disgraceful Timetable Motion which he has it in mind to introduce.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has raised what he describes as a point of order. It is not a point of order. He has raised a point such as has been referred to in recent speeches, I think, as a false point of order. It is not for me to decide the business of the House. It is for me to try to protect the time of the House. We have an important debate ahead of us, and we have had half an hour of questions on business. There is to be a full debate on Monday on these very matters. I do not think that the Leader of the House can be under any misapprehension about the strength of feeling on the Opposition benches with regard to the announcement which he has made.

It is one of the matters within the discretion of the Chair, entrusted to the Chair, as to when he closes questions on business and moves on to the next business before the House. I have so ruled, and there is no point of order.

Mr. Harold Wilson

On that point of order, Mr. Speaker [HON. MEMBERS: "It was not a point of order."] On a new point of order, then. I should prefer to leave it to the elected Chair. Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you are ruling now that there can be no more questions on next week's business? As I understand it, during the last half hour, and inevitably so in the circumstances—the Leader of the House cannot be surprised—all the questions have been about Monday's business. But the Leader of the House announced the business for Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday as well.

Does not your decision, Mr. Speaker, mean that we cannot put any questions to the right hon. Gentleman, for example, about whether a statement is to be made about the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference and about other important matters? Does it mean that we are getting a guillotine from the Chair as well as from the Leader of the House?

Mr. Speaker

This is a situation in which the House imposes upon itself its own disciplines. If the right hon. Gentleman has a question to ask about some other day's business, or about a statement, I shall allow it, but I shall not permit other questions—they have been put so frequently in virtually the same terms—about Monday's business.

Mr. Richard

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is open, is it not—perhaps you will correct me if I am wrong—for any Member of this honourable House at business question time to ask the Leader of the House whether he is prepared to find time to debate any particular subject next week? If that be so, I am bound to tell you that I have a question about Post Office and telecommunications affairs which I trust you will at some stage allow me to put to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker

There is no Standing Order to that effect. It depends entirely upon the use which the House itself makes of its time. Obviously, one cannot allow unlimited time for business questions.

Mr. William Hamilton

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will look up the precedents, some of which were created by your predecessor, when it was the constant practice almost every Thursday when the Government party was the Opposition for the exercise to be pursued sometimes for nearly an hour. On the issue now before us, there are millons of people outside who are most deeply and sincerely involved in a highly controversial matter, and for you, Mr. Speaker, to try to inflict on us a kind of Guillotine—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—is simply not good enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am asking Mr. Speaker to look at the precedents and consider whether he is seeking to cut us short on a particular Thursday when he ought to be much more flexible than usual.

Mr. Speaker

I shall certainly look at the precedents. The hon. Gentleman says that I am seeking to impose a sort of Guillotine. Whenever the Chair moves on to the next business, it does in a sense curtail or stop the previous business. There have been 30 minutes of questions on this one matter. If the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has a question to put on some other matter of business, I shall allow it.

Mr. Harold Wilson

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all recognise the difficulties in which you have been placed, and not by the House as a whole, but I should feel it quite wrong to respond to your generous invitation and avail myself of an opportunity to put questions which is denied to my hon. Friends.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the difficulty in which you are placed, but I hope that you will recognise that what is being raised here is a real point of order, for this reason. The Leader of the House is to conduct discussions between now and Monday. It is important, therefore, that those of us who have something for him to consider in those discussions should have an opportunity to say it now, because Monday will be too late. May I therefore, since this is a matter of order affecting the House, ask the Leader of the House to consider this point?

The nature of the Bill, as those of us who have studied it know, is rather unusual. The first four Clauses deal with broad general principles. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the point of order?"] I am on a point of order to Mr. Speaker. The substance of the Bill begins at Clause 5, and the essential Clauses on which some of us wish to speak are Clauses 5 to 10.

In his discussion through the usual channels, will the Leader of the House—if he must insist on applying his timetable at all—consider the possibility of not applying it until such time as those essential Clauses 5 to 10 have been fully discussed?

Mr. Speaker

That is very much a matter of argument for Monday on the division of time. It is not a point of order.

Mr. Blenkinsop

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I appeal to you to protect the position of back benchers who wish to put serious questions about business for next week but who have not had an opportunity?

Mr. Speaker

I shall allow hon. Members to put other questions about business. To that extent, I shall depart from my decision to move on. But, if any hon. Members who are called persist in going back to Monday's business, I shall have to move on very quickly.

Mr. Faulds

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have always understood that you, Sir, were the servant of the House. When it is clear that a large section of the House wishes to pursue a certain matter, I should have thought that it was your constitutional duty to allow it to do so.

Mr. Speaker

I heard the hon. Member pay his tribute to Dr. Horace King. I was hoping to learn by experience that he had profited by his tuition from Dr. King—

Mr. Faulds

You may have to earn it, Sir.

Mr. Blenkinsop

May I ask the Leader of the House whether—

Mr. Harold Walker

On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker

Order. If I have these continued points of order relating to a matter on which I have already ruled, it will not be possible for me to allow hon. Members to ask questions about other days' business next week.

Mr. Harold Walker

With great respect—

Mr. English

Further to that point of order. With respect, you have ruled more than once and not in the same way upon this. Do I take it that you are now ruling that not only the Leader of the Opposition but all others who may desire it may ask questions on business for days other than next Monday? If so, do you realise—or am I correct in saying—that, however sensible it may be, you are creating a completely new precedent for splitting up business questions? It may be sensible but I do not think it should be done in the heat of the moment. Rather, it should be done after mature consideration.

Mr. Speaker

The Chair is in a difficulty in a situation like this. Whenever a Timetable Motion is proposed there is always great indignation, and I think that I allowed a reasonable time for that indignation to show itself. My judgment in seeking to move on, and I only sought to move on to the next business, is because we are to have a debate on Monday when all of these arguments will be very relevant.

Then the point was raised by the Leader of the Opposition that it was unfair to move on without any opportunity being given to hon. Members to ask questions about the business on other days next week. I thought that I was being reasonable and flexible, in the better sense of the word, in saying that I would allow, not all questions but some questions, about the business for the other days next week. If that is not the wish of the House, I will move on at once.

Mr. Lawson

I must express my great sympathy for the position in which you are in, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask whether it is your opinion that the mode of behaviour of the Leader of the House is indicative of the kind of conditions that have provoked the industrial troubles which exist in the country today?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order and it is not for me. Mr. Blenkinsop.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

On a point of order.

Mr. Harold Walker

On a point of order.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

With respect, Mr. Speaker, you have just announced that we are not to have any more questions on Monday's business. You went on to explain that the reason was that you had already allowed half an hour's debate. Could I ask you to reflect on the fact, and it is a fact, that your predecessor used invariably to try to carry out a system whereby he allowed one back bencher to ask a question on next week's business and then a Member of the Front Bench. One of the difficulties is that the half hour to which you referred has been taken up almost solidly by the two Front Benches—and I do not object to that. This is one of the difficulties which arose in discussing the Industrial Relations Bill on Monday, when the Chief Whip admitted there was no filibustering; when he went round to keep quiet some of his back benchers who were filibustering—

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Lewis

Yes he did. On Clause 1 the Government took 62 minutes and the Opposition 53 minutes. My Front Bench asked me not to move a number of my Amendments and I agreed, but I had a number of Amendments on the Order Paper which I did not move, but I had 11 minutes of the debate. Now the usual channels will work and that means that I will not have even that opportunity—[Laughter.]—when I say "I", this applies to back benchers on both sides who will not have the opportunity either of taking part in the "usual channels" negotiations or of putting their points here. This is on the question of a Bill which is supposed to say to workers and trade unions, "Get together and have voluntary negotiations". Here are the Government telling the trade unions to have voluntary negotiations but refusing to negotiate with the Opposition and you, Sir—

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Lewis

—are refusing to allow hon. Members to put their objections about next week's business.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is not on a point of order, he is on a point of argument. All of these arguments will be very relevant on Monday but not today.

Mr. Harold Wilson

On a point of order.

Mr. Harold Walker

May I seek your guidance—

Hon. Members

Which Harold?

Mr. Speaker

I call the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Harold Wilson

As I understand it, you have suggested that if we now cease points of order on the question of Monday's business, you are prepared to allow a little time, in your discretion, for further questions about next week's business, some of which may be of great importance to individual hon. Members and some of which may be of importance to the whole country. If that is so, might I suggest, through you, that we accept that and that we raise no more points of order now on Monday's business but instead put one or two questions, if you are prepared to allow them, on the rest of the week.

Mr. Blenkinsop

rose—

Mr. Harold Walker

On a point of order—[HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.]—I have been in this House approximately seven years and this is the first time, and I hope the last for some while, that I have sought to raise a point of order. May I seek your advice? As I understand it, every Thursday the Leader of the House proposes to the House what the business for the following week should be. We do not, as back benchers, necessarily accept that as a fait accompli. We have some right to comment on the acceptability or otherwise of the business for next week. It seems that we are being told, whether we like it or not, what the business for next week will be without being able to impress our views upon the Leader of the House about what I submit is not any guillotine Motion but a quite unprecedented, exceptional, most extraordinary and serious situation.

It is serious because I want to impress upon the Leader of the House that between now and Monday there may very well be, and I say this quite seriously and guardedly, an industrial response to what has been announced this afternoon. We earnestly hope that there will not be but we cannot blind ourselves to the realities of the situation. I would urge upon you the importance of allowing the House to seek to dissuade the Leader of the House from going forward with next Monday's business.

Mr. Speaker

I am grateful to the hon. Member for the way in which he has put that point of order. I think it is a very serious question for the House to decide how it should conduct its business. Technically, all that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are allowed to do is to ask questions about business, I do not think that they are allowed to question the business, to dispute decisions. They are allowed to ask questions about the business for next week. There has grown up the practice of a very wide-ranging discussion.

I will certainly take into account all the points which have been put by hon. Members during the course of this afternoon's discussion, if that is the right way to describe it, because the Chair is in a difficulty. It tends to take up a great deal of the time of the House and I think for the moment it will be much better to deal with the situation in the way in which the Leader of the Opposition has suggested. Mr. Blenkinsop.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Will you reflect on that, Mr. Speaker? You said a moment ago that it is in order for hon. Members to ask questions about next week's business but not to seek changes. With respect, if that becomes a Ruling it is completely contrary to my experience over 26 years, which is that the object of asking questions on next week's business is to seek a change and to ask whether in place of particular business Motion No. So-and-so or some other business should be put in its place. I hope that you will consider this, and see whether you have given the right ruling.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has made a real point. When I said that hon. Members are not allowed to question the business I meant they must not discuss the merits of the topics chosen. They may ask questions and seek to make changes, certainly. I promise that I shall carefully consider what has been said about these matters today with regard to future, I hope, shorter conduct of this period in our weekly discussion.

Mr. Blenkinsop

May I ask the Leader of the House for time next week to debate Motion No. 227 on safety at sea?

[That this House deeply deplores Her Majesty's Government's decision to withdraw radio telegraphy officers from vessels engaged in the north-east coal trade; is concerned about the safety of these vessels and their crews; alarmed at there being no control over the continental movements of such vessels without them having adequate radio telegraphic equipment and certificated radio officers; and hopes that Her Majesty's Government will reconsider its decision, which was taken without adequate consultation and which is distressing members and families of the Radio and Electronic Officers Union, the National Union of Seamen, the Mercantile Marine Service Association, the Merchant Navy and airline officers and the Amalgamated Engineers Union.]

The Government have taken decisions that involve serious danger to crews of small vessels from the North-East Coast. I suggest that it would be possible to debate the Motion on Monday if the right hon. Gentleman withdrew his guillotine Motion.

Mr. Whitelaw

I fully accept the importance of the subject the hon. Gentleman has raised and shall certainly consider the whole problem of debate on it, but I could not give time next week.

Mr. Rees-Davies

Is there likely to be an opportunity to consider the postal strike further early in the week with a further statement from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, particularly bearing in mind the very detailed written arbitration agreements in existence and the possibility of securing greater expedition of the removal of grievances by the postmen? There are two sides to the matter, and it might be wise to have an opportunity to consider it further next week.

Mr. Whitelaw

I shall convey those views to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. If a statement has to be made on that or any other subject to do with the postal strike I know that my right hon. Friend will wish to keep the House very fully informed.

Mr. Mulley

Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Minister for Transport Industries to make a statement on his actions in causing a receiver to be appointed and operations to be cancelled yesterday by Skyways Coach Air, a company in which a substantial amount of public money is invested, since I was not able to ask a Private Notice Question today?

Mr. Whitelaw

I shall call the attention of my right hon. Friend to what the right hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Richard

Will the Leader of the House request his right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to make a statement next week on the future of commercial radio? Is he aware that the right hon. Gentleman told me in answer to a Question at the beginning of December that a statement would be made and a White Paper produced "early next year". It is now three weeks into "next year". When are we likely to have the White Paper?

Mr. Whitelaw

I cannot say exactly. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is still "early next year". As soon as the Government are ready with proposals, they will be put before the House.

Miss Devlin

Since the Leader of the House seems determined to cut time on other important matters, may I ask him whether he will find time to discuss a very important matter that the House must discuss, if not next week at least at the earliest opportunity. That is the imprisonment of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) for activities which are not criminal activities in this country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement as to what the rights and privileges of that hon. Member are, since the hon. Gentleman's position cannot be equated with my own? The hon. Gentleman now in prison is not guilty of a criminal offence in this country, that is, in the rest of the United Kingdom. In view not only of the serious situation pertaining not only to the hon. Gentleman but the whole situation in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary and his hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence to make statements and give an assurance that there will be no internment, to rearming of the police and no relaxation of the rules of procedure of the Army, such as allowing shooting to kill, without the opportunity for the House to discuss them?

Mr. Whitelaw

I appreciate the importance of the questions the hon. Lady raises. Some of them are rather a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, some are for the Northern Ireland Government, and some may be matters for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I shall see that all these questions are properly considered. I cannot give time for debate next week, but I note the importance of the subject and I shall call the attention of my right hon. Friends concerned to what the hon. Lady said.

Mr. Turton

Can my right hon. Friend say on what day my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference?

Mr. Whitelaw

Naturally, I have not been able to discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend. I shall discuss it with him as soon as he returns. I know that he will wish to keep the House very closely informed at an early moment.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

Does the Home Secretary intend to make a statement next week about the future of the Carlisle and District State Management Scheme which it is proposed to dispose of in favour of private industry? Does he agree that the method of giving this information in reply to a Written Question is very unwholesome and inconsistent with the best traditions of the House?

Mr. Whitelaw

On the question of how the decision was announced, there are every week and every day pressures both for statements and for the time of the House for subsequent debates to be safeguarded. I consulted my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and we both considered that as the matter would subsequently require legislation, and in view of the pressure of other statements, it was right that the announcement should be made in that way. Despite the fact that I have a close personal constituency interest in the matter, I still took that decision, though I should have liked it the other way. In the interests of the House I thought that it was right to do it like that.

Mr. Gorst

Is it possible to find time at an early date to discuss the televising of the proceedings of the House, to enable the public to witness the debate on the result of the Common Market negotiations?

Mr. Whitelaw

The House considered this question in the last Parliament and decided on a vote, with a majority of one, that it would not proceed with the televising of Parliament. I voted in favour, and I do not disguise from the House that I still personally hold that view. But this is very much a matter for the House of Commons as a whole. I hope that it will be carefully considered in the new Parliament, but I do not think that the time for a debate has yet come. There should be more careful consideration in the House as a whole.

Mr. Dalyell

As no fewer than 382 journalists are accredited to the Palace of Westminster, can the Leader of the House find time for a statement, either by himself or by you, Mr. Speaker, on the important issues that arise out of a case, details of which I have sent him, of an application for admission to the Lobby in relation to the technical Press? Could he make a statement on the criteria by which admission to the Lobby is determined?

Mr. Whitelaw

I am prepared to look into the hon. Gentleman's questions. I am not quite clear on the responsibilities in the matter, and therefore should not like to give an answer before very careful consideration.

Mr. Hastings

In view of the publication today of the full Roskill Report, will my right hon. Friend accept the gratitude of many of those concerned for the speed with which that large document has been produced? But does he realise that the price of £5 places it out of the range of many of those whose homes are threatened by its conclusions? When is the debate likely to take place?

Mr. Whitelaw

I think that the only matter for which I should answer is the question of when there will be a debate. I said last week, and I stand by that promise, that there will be an opportunity for the House to debate the subject before any Government decision has been taken. I cannot at this stage say exactly when the debate will take place.

Mr. Mackintosh

Is the Leader of the House aware that the annual White Paper on the five-year rolling programme of public expenditure, which was due out in the autumn, has not yet appeared, and that until it appears we cannot have the annual to-day debate which he has promised and which I gather is now a regular feature of our proceedings? Can he say when the White Paper will appear and when the two-day debate will take place?

Mr. Whitelaw

The publication of the White Paper will be very soon. I have made it clear in answers to questions before, but for the avoidance of doubt perhaps I should repeat, that in the somewhat exceptional conditions of this year, when there were the debates in the autumn, I thought it reasonable—though I am in the hands of the House—that this time there should be a one-day debate. I have given the guarantee of two days for the future.

Mr. Cordle

In view of the importance of the success of the hotel and tourist industry and its difficulties, and the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, can my right hon. Friend give us some time to debate the matter, not next week but perhaps a little later, in view of the forthcoming season?

Mr. Whitelaw

This is an important subject, but I cannot offer time for a debate in the very near future.

Mr. Bob Brown

In view of the seriousness of the unemployment figures announced today and the tragic figures that are developing in the regions, will the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late stage, consider dropping the nonsensical Motion for Monday and substitute a debate on the much more relevant topic of unemployment?

Mr. Whitelaw

I accept the extreme importance of the matter. No doubt the hon. Gentleman heard the exchanges with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary earlier. I could not give time for such a debate next week.

Mr. Wellbeloved

In view of the astounding revelation by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at Question Time this week that he is conducting secret talks to impose a meat tax on the British public, will the right hon. Gentle- man find time next week or as soon as possible for us to debate this departure from the normal supply of low-priced meat to the housewife?

Mr. Whitelaw

I cannot accept the construction that the hon. Gentleman puts on what my right hon. Friend is doing. I shall call my right hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Sheldon

Will the Leader of the House look again at the question of a two-day debate on public expenditure? He must be aware that what was debated in the autumn was quite outside the scope of the debate that had been promised and that it was accepted in the past that the debate was for a review of public expenditure, not the particular cuts that we discussed then. If we are to spend, as we do, 15 days or more on questions of how we raise money, the least we can do is to spend two days in the House discussing how we spend it.

Mr. Whitelaw

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I was merely restating what I said in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) during the discussions on the Green Paper on Select Committees in the autumn. If the hon. Gentleman looks at HANSARD I think that he will find that that is what I said then.

Mr. Sheldon

We do not like it.

Mr. Whitelaw

I accept that, and I am prepared to consider what has been said. I was merely repeating what I had said.