HC Deb 04 November 1971 vol 825 cc334-42
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 debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech will be continued tomorrow and on MONDAY, and be brought to a conclusion on TUESDAY, 9TH NOVEMBER.

At the end of MONDAY—Motion on the New Bus Grants (Increase of Rate and Extension of Period) Order.

The business for WEDNESDAY, 10TH NOVEMBER will be—Second Reading of the Mineral Exploration, Etc. Bill which it is hoped to obtain by about seven o'clock.

Afterwards Motion on the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965 (Continuation) Order.

THURSDAY, 11TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Sound Broadcasting Bill.

FRIDAY, 12TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the New Towns Bill, and of the Banking and Financial Dealings Bill.

MONDAY, 15TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Housing Finance Bill.

Mr. Harold Wilson

Dealing with Wednesday's business, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we share his hope that we shall get through the Second Reading of that important but I think uncontroversial Bill at a reasonably early hour to allow maximum time for discussion of the Rhodesian situation? The Bill originated with the Labour Government, it has been taken over by the right hon. Gentleman's Government, and I believe that we all very much support it.

My second question concerns the business so far provisionally announced for Monday week, the Second Reading of the Housing Finance Bill. Would the right hon. Gentleman give very careful consideration to a proposal put to him from our side of the House that, in view of the fundamental change which it makes in all the housing policies which have been followed for some 50 years past, and in view of the very large number of tenants who will be affected, there is a case for this Bill to be debated not for one day but for two? He did not preclude this, as I understand the situation, since he announced business only up to Monday of the following week. Will he therefore give earnest consideration to this suggestion for a two-day debate on Second Reading?

Mr. Whitelaw

I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said in his first point, and I hope that business on Wednesday will be conducted on that basis.

I note what he said in his second point. I am sure he will be the first to appreciate that two days for the Second Reading of a Bill are very unusual, with very few precedents. Nevertheless, I am prepared to consider it through the usual channels.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

As my right hon. Friend will remember, the Select Committee on Procedure submitted in July a rather mixed bag of recommendations. When will the Government indicate their attitude on this matter and may we be told when the House will be given an opportunity to discuss these recommendations?

Mr. Whitelaw

As the House knows, I have always been very anxious to give the quickest possible response to any Report from Select Committees concerning the procedure of the House. Therefore, I intend to give the Government's answer to the Select Committee's proposals in a statement on Monday. There-after the various resolutions to give effect to these proposals which the Government will accept will be put before the House.

Mr. George Thomas

Would the right hon. Gentleman say what are his proposals about local government reform? In view of the fact that the Government issued a separate White Paper for local government reform in Wales, and also bearing in mind that no Royal Commission has dealt with local government in Wales, why is Wales not being allowed a separate Measure which could be dealt with by Welsh Members of Parliament?

Mr. Whitelaw

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the Government proposals. A Bill has been published and shortly will be brought before the House on Second Reading. I note what the right hon. Gentleman said. These matters were taken into consideration, and the decision was that it was right to have one Bill.

Dame Irene Ward

I appreciate how very busy my right hon. Friend is and I will not press him to give me a day to debate a matter relating to the police in which I am particularly interested. However, he will know that I have a Question down next week and would be grateful if my right hon. Friend would discuss this matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and with the Home Secretary before he answers it. Is he aware that at a time when the police are very heavily pressed, any matter which they would like put right as a matter of justice ought to be put right speedily? The Question which I have on the Order Paper for next week affects Northumberland police, and I hope that I shall receive a satisfactory reply to it.

Mr. Whitelaw

It would be dangerous for me to go as far as to assure the hon. Lady exactly what reply she will get, but I will certainly discuss her important Question with my right hon. Friends concerned.

Mr. J. T. Price

With regard to next week's business, could the Leader of the House give me an assurance that this House will be more fit to work in than it has been this week and last week? I refer, of course, to the massive building operations which are now taking place in Speaker's Court. Is he aware that this way of conducting the business of the House, in conditions which amount almost to a state of siege and heavy bombardment affects not only Members of Parliament in trying to carry out their work but also servants of the House? Does he not agree that these conditions are an outrage and that if the Government cannot organise the building programme any better they ought to hand it over to somebody who can?

Mr. Whitelaw

I much regret any inconvenience caused to right hon. and hon. Members. I do not think it is quite as bad as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He put his point in a graphic way and that is very important. I would point out to the House that these matters are normally dealt with by the Services Committee of the House. I happen to have noticed that when the proposal to set up a new Services Committee was put down last night it was objected to. I must point out that if hon. Members do not want a Services Committee they will not have one.

Mr. Emery

In regard to Wednesday's business, if the Mineral Exploration, Etc., Bill lasts until seven o'clock, with only half an hour for Front Bench spokesmen, will this not mean that there will be only two hours left for the Southern Rhodesia Order to be debated? Would my right hon. Friend consider an extension to 11.30 p.m.—or is this automatic?

Mr. Whitelaw

On an Order the extension to 11.30 p.m. is automatic.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

When do the Government intend to move the Second Reading of the Transport Holding Companies Bill?

Mr. Whitelaw

Not next week.

Mr. Ridsdale

Could my right hon. Friend arrange to have a debate on local government finance separate from a debate on the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill? We were promised a great debate on this but we do not seem to have had a debate at all.

Mr. Whitelaw

I note my hon. Friend's important proposal. Certainly it will be considered, but I cannot say when it will be possible.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

Would the Leader of the House arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement next week about the trial and conviction of the Dean of Johannesburg? If it is merely proposed that the Foreign Secretary should refer to this in his speech today, may I say that that would not meet the convenience of some hon. Members of the House who are very anxious to address questions to the Foreign Secretary on this matter, and that the impact in Pretoria would be much less from a mere allusion to the matter in the Foreign Secretary's speech than it would be from a large number of questions to the Foreign Secretary here?

Mr. Whitelaw

As I think the hon. Member appreciates, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, very shortly in today's debate, and I think that it would be right for the House to see what he says and then to decide thereafter.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg

Would my right hon. Friend find time, if not next week, before Christmas, for a debate on the Report and Accounts of the Post Office for the year ended in 1970?

Mr. Whitelaw

I could not promise time for a debate at the moment, but I certainly note the important request which my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Russell Kerr

Can the Leader of the House tell us when we can expect time to debate the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries concerning the British Airports Authority? Is he aware that the troubles which we have discussed already today might well have been averted if some of those recommendations had been put into effect?

Mr. Whitelaw

The hon. Gentleman knows that I appreciate his interest in these matters. There are always days for debates on the various Select Committee Reports. Certainly this one will be considered when those days come.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

Will my right hon. Friend be able to find time in the near future to debate Britain's representation in the European institutions as far as the international civil service is concerned, and also to debate the representation of this Honourable House in the European institution?

Mr. Whitelaw

Clearly these are important matters, but I cannot promise time for a debate in the near future.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Could the Leader of the House make an arrangement some time next week for the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to explain to the House why it was that yesterday morning and yesterday afternoon, notwithstanding the fact that he had a sponsored Question on the Order Paper,

full and complete details were subsequently announced in the Press concerning postal charges and alterations? Are we to have this kind of thing continually—not a leak but an actual statement which was in contempt of this House? Would he get the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to come to the House and give us a chance to have a go at him—not leak it to the Press?

Mr. Whitelaw

I do not accept for one moment the suggestion that my right hon. Friend leaked it to the Press. What I would say is that there is certainly no question of a contempt of the House in these matters.

Mr. Harold Wilson

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consider this? I do not think anyone is suggesting a leak. It was a form of statement made outside the House, not inside the House. While not wishing to be censorious so early in the Session—

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Why not?

Mr. Wilson

I should like the right hon. Gentleman to look at what has been happening this week to see whether there is a change in practice from what he insisted upon last Session. In this case, with a normal Question the Minister would have come to the House and made a statement, or there would have been a Private Notice Question.

Secondly, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would look at another point which I was hoping to draw to his attention, the fact that we heard yesterday afternoon—not in this House, but, again, through the Press—of a very important change in the situation in Northern Ireland, taken. apparently uniquely, by the Northern Ireland Government with or without the support of the Government here. The House has not been told. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the day before, the Prime Minister referred to the Northern Ireland situation in terms which commended themselves to the whole House? Surely he must have known that this was going to be done, yet he said nothing in his speech about it.

Would the Leader of the House, therefore, attempt to put this right, asking both his right hon. Friends responsible to come to the House on both these issues and make their statements on matters for which they are accountable to the House, so that the House can debate with them?

Mr. Whitelaw

I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. Certainly he has been more generous than was his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend deliberately said that information had been leaked by my right hon. Friend. That is why I gave him the answer I gave. I heard him distinctly, as did the House. I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. I certainly note the point he put forward. I think the proper procedure has been followed in this case, and certainly I am anxious that the House is given full information. I think it has been in this case.

Mr. Cockeram

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will find time for a debate, if not next week, before Christmas, on the important Report of the Bolton Committee dealing with the part played by small businesses in our economy?

Mr. Whitelaw

I note what my hon. Friend says. I think it is an important Report. I am glad at the reception given to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday. I cannot promise time for a debate in the near future, but there will be other opportunities, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to get one of those, when the subject can be debated. I will certainly bear in mind the point he has raised.

Mr. Bagier

Has the Leader of the House noted Early Day Motion No. 8, tabled yesterday in my name and that of my hon. Friends, referring to the unemployment demonstration to take place in Newcastle this Saturday? Whereas I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman will be anxious to find time for a debate next week, he will appreciate that that will be too late, and I am wondering whether there is any way he can suggest that the Motion be passed either today or tomorrow so that his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench may go to that demonstration with clear consciences.

That this House takes note of the growing dissatisfaction in the country about the present disastrous unemployment figures, notes with dismay the alarming unemployment figures in the Northern Region, and therefore calls for massive support of the unemployment demonstration to be held in Newcastle-upon-Tyne on Saturday 6th November, 1971, to be addressed by Mr. Victor Feather, General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress.]

Mr. Whitelaw

I think the hon. Member will appreciate that I have noted the terms of the Motion. The subject of unemployment has been chosen by the Opposition for debate on Tuesday, and the hon. Member may be interested to note that I shall have the pleasure of replying to that debate and that I am looking forward to the occasion.

Mr. Charles R. Morris

The Leader of the House will be aware that the dramatic announcement by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications yesterday and the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation has given rise to considerable anxieties in so far as this envisages a loss of 25,000 jobs by Post Office staff. Would he accept that the Post Office staff and reasonable Members on both sides of this House feel that the Minister should take an early opportunity of making a statement on this matter?

Mr. Whitelaw

I note what the hon. Member says. At the same time, this was clearly set out by the Post Office Corporation, whose responsibility it is. I think the proper procedure was followed in this case.

Mr. Raphael Tuck

Would the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for the Environment to come to the House and to make a statement on the killer stretch of the M1 motorway between Watford and Hemel Hempstead? There were 23 pile-ups on one night last week on that stretch. The Secretary of State promised an inquiry last July but up to now nothing more has been heard of it.

Mr. Whitelaw

I appreciate the hon. Member's concern with this difficult problem and I accept the seriousness of it. I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend concerned to what he said.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. It will be within your memory that the Leader of the House a moment ago said that I had falsely accused the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications of leaking to the Press. If I may, I would raise with you this question. An allegation has been made that I falsely made that statement. In fact, yesterday morning in the Daily Express there was a verbatim report of a speech which the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications had made the day before yesterday—I think, speaking from memory, to the Law Society—making an announcement in regard to postal increases prior to their being put to the House of Commons and in the knowledge that the Minister had a sponsored Question. Surely that shows that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications must have deliberately gone outside and made that speech in contempt of this House.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member raises a point of order. I am not responsible for what he says, nor am I responsible for what the Minister says. There are certain parliamentary expressions which are out of order, but none has been used today. I think the hon. Member must find other methods of pursung his problem.

Mr. Whitelaw

The hon. Gentleman, in the guise of a point of order, has made an accusation against my right hon. Friend which I think I have the right to say is not in accordance with the facts. My right hon. Friend in the speech he made —and he has just assured me of this—did not set out the details of what was announced by the Post Office yesterday, and to that extent the hon. Gentleman is wrong, and he must appreciate that.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Daily Express for yesterday he will see, as I saw, that the details subsequently announced in reply to the sponsored Question were attributed to the Minister. Perhaps the Minister will confirm or deny that he addressed a meeting.

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is highly irregular. This cannot be raised as a matter of order. It is not a matter of order for the Chair. There will be many other opportunities in the not very distant future when the Minister can be questioned about this matter, but it cannot be raised as a point of order.