HC Deb 27 June 1972 vol 839 cc1190-4
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr)

Mr. Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a business statement.

After the business already announced for tomorrow, it is proposed that there should be a short debate on the sub judice rule, on a Government Motion.

On Thursday, instead of further progress on the European Communities Bill, there will be Supply (24th allotted day) when there will be a debate on economic affairs. I should perhaps add that in order to avoid any interruption of this debate the House will be asked to agree that the opposed Private Business due for consideration at 7 o'clock should be postponed until 10 o'clock.

As the House knows, the proceedings on the Gas Bill were not completed on Friday last. It is proposed therefore that it should be taken as first business on Friday of this week.

Mr. Edward Short

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for agreeing to our request for an immediate debate on the extremely serious crisis into which the Government's economic policy has landed the nation.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a number of questions. First, on the sub judice rule, do I take it that the Government's Motion will be to accept the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure? Secondly, will the Leader of the House agree that it is a borrowed Supply Day, and confirm for the sake of accuracy that it is the third borrowed Supply Day? Thirdly, on what basis is the debate to be taken? We shall certainly wish to censure the Government, either in a Motion or in an Amendment. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when the Labour Government devalued we immediately offered two days' debate? We shall require another whole day next week to debate industrial relations, which are just as dangerous and critical as our financial affairs.

Mr. Carr

I certainly recognise that the Supply Day on Thursday is a borrowed Supply Day. I repeat the assurances given through the usual channels that in due course the debt will be repaid.

I shall consult on the basis on which the debate should take place, but I think it likely that it will be for the convenience of the House if it takes place on a Government Motion, which of course the Opposition would be free to seek to amend if they wished.

As to the sub judice rule, the Government, having studied the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, accept the recommendations in relation to certain cases before the civil courts, including the National Industrial Relations Court, which involve applications by Ministers or involve issues of public importance, such as issues affecting the national economy or national security and so on. However, the Government think it would be premature to accept the wider recommendations of the Select Committee in respect of proceedings in the civil courts generally until the report of the Phillimore Committee has been received. That Committee is dealing with the whole issue of contempt of court, which includes questions of possible prejudice arising out of public discussion and comment on proceedings and so on. We think it wiser to await its report before accepting the widest recommendations of the Select Committee affecting civil courts generally. But we have accepted the recommendations on the National Industrial Relations Court.

Sir Robin Turton

While I appreciate the Government's reasons for not accepting all the Select Committee's recommendations, which I think is probably a very wise precaution to take as the Phillimore Committee is still discussing the matters before it, will my right hon. Friend be putting down a Motion to amend the 1963 Resolution of the House so as to clear the position in the future?

Mr. Carr

I shall certainly be tabling a Motion tonight. I hope my right hon. Friend will excuse me from trying to define it too technically, but I assure him and the House that the object of the Motion will be to give the House the opportunity to affirm in a positive way what the rule should be in the future until we have the Phillimore Report, when we may wish to change it still further.

Sir Elwyn Jones

Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that there will be no inhibitions in the debate on industrial relations, and that the guidelines given by the Select Committee will be those that Mr. Speaker in his discretion will presumably follow?

Mr. Carr

The only inhibitions will be those imposed by Mr. Speaker, and presumably also on the lines of the Motion which I shall Table proposing the acceptance of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure in the respects to which I have referred.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

What is the need for the rush to debate the sub judicerule tomorrow? Should not the Motion be on the Table so that Members may see what they are to debate? Is it not contradictory in one sense to say that we do not want to anticipate the Phillimore Report and at the same time to give way on a very important principle in the way my right hon. Friend suggested when he described in general terms what his Motion will be? The urgency does not exist. What is proposed is dangerous. We are breaking away from a tradition which has proved to be fair, right and objective. I am certain the Opposition will take full advantage in doing damage to the nation in next week's debate as a consequence.

Mr. Carr

I appreciate the importance which my hon. Friend and other hon. Members rightly attach to the matter. I assure the House that for nearly a fortnight, since the Select Committee reported, the Government have considered the issues very carefully. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has, properly, been involved in the consultations. He has consulted the heads of the judiciary and so on, and we are satisfied that it is responsible to accept the recommendations which I have indicated, but that it would not be responsible to go the whole hog—[Laughter.]—I did not mean that as a pun—we thought it would not be responsible to go the whole way until we had had the advantage of the Phillimore Committee's report.

Mr. Orme

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in declining to accept the complete set of recommendations of the Procedure Committee the Government are restricting us in our discussion of sub judice matters dealing with important industrial issues outside the purview of the issues which he has dealt with? Since we shall want a full debate tomorrow, are we to asume that the debate will go for some considerable time?

Mr. Carr

We will see how we get on tomorrow and judge accordingly when the time comes. As I understand it, the concern of the hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends has been in connection with the operation of the Industrial Relations Act and the new National Industrial Relations Court. This has not been raised before in relation to the long standing law of this country and the operation of the courts other than the NIRC in connection with industrial affairs. We have accepted the recommendations in relation to the NIRC and certain other actions in civil courts where applications by Ministers are involved and where issues of wide national importance are involved.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

While I fully understand the reasons why my right hon. Friend feels it necessary to put this down for tomorrow's business, may I ask him whether he regards this matter, as is customary with the reports of the Procedure Committee, as one for the House of Commons as a whole or as inevitably involving Government policy?

Mr. Carr

We asked the Committee to look at this matter urgently and the Government have considered it urgently. I hope that tomorrow night the House will look at it as a genuine House of Commons matter. I do not believe that there ought to be party division, because thesis a serious matter in the constitutional freedom of this country.