BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 15 February 1973)

§ Mr. Harold Wilson
May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior)
Yes, Sir.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19TH FEBRUARY—Debate on a Motion to take note of the White Paper on "Education: A Framework for Expansion" (Command No. 5174).
Remaining stages of the Atomic Energy Authority (Weapons Group) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 20TH FEBRUARY—Debate on a Motion to Approve the Steel Industry White Paper "Ten Year Development Strategy" (Command No. 5226).
Remaining stages of the Coal Industry Bill and of the Fire Precautions (Loans) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 21ST FEBRUARY—Supply (9th allotted day). There will be a debate on Television Licences for Retired Pensioners, which will arise on an Opposition motion.
Motions relating to the Statements of Immigration Rules.
1451 THURSDAY 22ND FEBRUARY—Debate on the International Monetary Situation, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Land Compensation Bill.
FRIDAY 23RD FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 26TH FEBRUARY—Supply (10th allotted day). Debate on a topic to be announced.

§ Mr. Wilson
We should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for rearranging the original plan for next week's business to provide in Government time the debate on the international monetary situation. We all feel it to be absolutely right that the House should debate the subject, having allowed 10 days or so for foreign exchange markets to settle down.
In view of the unsatisfactory state in which the matter has been left, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement by the Attorney-General, or anyone else who can speak with authority on behalf of the Government in such matters, on the legal aspects of some of the exchanges about the gas dispute at Question Time today and on Tuesday? As the Prime Minister on Tuesday referred in that context to breaches of the law, may we have explained by the Attorney-General what law is being broken in respect of the dispute? It is not a stage 1 anti-freeze dispute, and the stage 2 Bill is not yet law, although, as we undertook it would, it is making reasonably fast progress, despite what the Prime Minister said a few days ago. Therefore, may we have a statement saying whether any law is broken? If it is not, may we have a personal apology from the Prime Minister for what he said to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) on the question?
In view of all the arguments we have had to listen to for so long about how the Industrial Relations Act would deal with disputes, may we have a statement next week explaining why the Government are not using either the cooling-off period or the strike ballot procedure of that legislation? Or is it that they now know from last year's experience that, as 1452 we told them, those laws, like many of the Prime Minister's utterances, are not only useless but provocative?

§ Mr. Prior
In fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, I must tell him that I do not believe that either of the two matters he has raised has anything to do with next week's business.

§ Mr. Wilson
On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman is treating the House with contempt. It has traditionally been the practice of the House to ask for statements in the following week. The right hon. Gentleman ran away from the question because he did not know the answer. This comes after earlier in the day—a point to which I drew attention last week—there was a grouping of about 11 or 12 Questions to avoid the Prime Minister's being drawn on the question of industrial relations, on which he has the guts to talk to the television cameras but not to the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman has raised a point of order. I do not think that it is a matter for me.

§ Mr. Stratton Mills
Has my right hon. Friend any information—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Leader of the House should answer the question."] Has my right hon. Friend any information to give the House on the date of publication of the White Paper on the future of Northern Ireland? May I particularly ask that the Government should—

§ Mr. Edward Short
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Leader of the Opposition to ask the Leader of the House for a statement and for the Leader of the House to remain in his seat and make no response? Surely the Opposition have some rights?

§ Mr. Speaker
The Opposition have many rights. It is not a matter of order. I cannot make Ministers answer, and I am not responsible for the content of their answers. However, I am sure that the Leader of the House has noted the right hon. Gentleman's point, and there may be a consequence.

§ Mr. Harold Wilson
You have ruled that the matter I raised was not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House himself construed order by ruling out my question on the ground that it had nothing to do with business 1453 for next week. Is it not for you to give the rulings, Mr. Speaker? We are tired of the Prime Minister trying to lay down the law, instead of leaving it to Parliament, but for the right hon. Gentleman to do it is intolerable.

§ Mr. Prior
I must tell the right hon Gentleman that I thought he was making his points for a very good political reason, but that he was not expecting me to reply to them.
I have noted what he said on the subject of the Attorney-General making a statement to the House, but at the moment I see no reason why that statement is called for.

§ Mr. Stratton Mills
Reverting to my question on the White Paper on Northern Ireland, may I ask that the Government set themselves a deadline and discipline of 30th March unless, of course, some quite exceptional circumstances intervene?

§ Mr. Prior
I have noted what my hon. Friend said. I will inform my right hon. Friend of his views, but I cannot at present give a date for the White Paper.

§ Mr. Faulds
Since it is getting on for nearly a year since the Working Party on Public Lending Right reported to the Paymaster-General, when may we expect a statement—and the present Government are chary of making any sort of statement—on this important public issue?

§ Mr. Prior
I will consult the Paymaster-General and see when a statement can be made.

§ Dame Irene Ward
May I ask my right hon. Friend—having asked him, I think, three weeks in succession—when we shall have some news about the Booz Allen Report on Shipbuilding? Could he also say what is happening about shipping in view of the fact that we need some more invisible exports in which, of course, the shipping industry plays a very large and gallant part? I wish to know how we are progressing, because shipbuilding and shipping are very important to our industrial economy. I want a good and satisfactory answer.

§ Mr. Prior
My hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping has, I think, answered a Question recently about the Booz Allen Report.

§ Dame Irene Ward
Not satisfactorily.

§ Mr. Prior
May I say to my hon. Friend that one of the most satisfactory things to have happened about shipbuilding for a long while is the tremendous order that Swan Hunter has gained.

§ Mr. Russell Kerr
Can the Leader of the House tell us when we shall have an opportunity to discuss the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on the Independent Broadcasting Authority? Meanwhile, until we get that opportunity, will he instruct his right hon. Friend responsible for Posts and Telecommunications to stop carving up national assets in the interests of his political friends?

§ Mr. Prior
I reject very strongly the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The reply by the Government to the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on the IBA will, I hope, be available very shortly.

§ Mr. Booth
Will the Leader of the House inform us when we are to have an opportunity to debate a Restriction on Remuneration Order which is preventing the Co-operative Society from paying increases to its lower-paid workers under agreements which were made well in advance of the present Government's freeze policy? Will he acknowledge that this order was laid before Parliament only three days before it came into operation, that a great number of hon. Members very much resent the way in which this has been done and that there has been no opportunity for the House to express a view upon it?

§ Mr. Prior
I will consult through the usual channels to see whether time can be made for a discussion of this order. I am afraid that at present I can say no more than that.

§ Sir Robin Turton
Would the Lord President of the Council make clear whether his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will be making a statement on Wednesday on the price review? Is the date settled, or will it have to be kept secret until later?

§ Mr. Prior
My right hon. Friend will in due course be making a statement. It is probable that it will be within three 1455 weeks or so. We shall make a statement on our determinations for 1973–74. A statement can be made later about the determinations which come later for the Community.

§ Mr. John Silkin
Does the Leader of the House recall that a week ago he gave me an undertaking that he would give the answer to the question whether the White Paper on Private Practice in the National Health Service would come before the Second Reading of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill? A week has gone by and he has not been in touch with me. Is he now prepared to give the House an assurance?

§ Mr. Prior
I am sorry that I have not been in touch with the right hon. Gentleman. I still await a final view from the Secretary of State on this matter.
The Second Reading of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill cannot take place for some weeks owing to other important business. I should think that in all probability the reply to the Select Committee will be available before then, but I would wish to check that again before giving a definite answer.

§ Mr. Robert Cooke
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are at least some hon. Members in this House who do not share the view of the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) about producing the Report on the IBA? Many people feel that the report did not reflect truly the evidence and that, as there is this argument about the matter, perhaps we might well have a debate in the House to sort things out.

§ Mr. Russell Kerr
The hon. Gentleman should talk to his own colleagues.

§ Mr. Prior
I cannot promise the House any time in the near future for a debate on this matter.

§ Sir G. de Freitas
When will the Leader of the House provide time for debating some of the important Command Paper reports of last year—I refer to Erroll, Franks, Robens, Younger and so on—or are the Government insisting that we should be merely a legislature reacting to the Government's views on these reports? We want to debate them now.

§ Mr. Prior
This coming week we are debating two White Papers.

§ Sir G. de Freitas
I am talking about Erroll, Franks, Robens and Younger.

§ Mr. Prior
The right hon. Gentleman will know that Erroll has not been published very long.
On the subject of Franks, the Government have said that they are considering the report and will produce their views on it when these are available.
I do not think we are making bad progress as a House at present in debating a great many of these measures, but of course there are always other matters with which to fill the time.

§ Mr. Kilfedder
Before the White Paper on the proposals for Northern Ireland is published, would my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate so that the House can discuss how those proposals might best be fully, properly and reasonably considered by the Ulster people?
Secondly, could my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the menace which exists in this country presented by the IRA and the front organisations which collect money allegedly for charitable and social purposes, but which money is expended for the purchase of arms and ammunition for use in Northern Ireland against civilians there and against members of the security forces?

§ Mr. Prior
My right hon. Friend has, I think, from time to time spoken about the latter part of my hon. Friend's question.
On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I must tell him there will be many debates on Northern Ireland over the next few months. I think it would be better for the White Paper to be published and for a discussion then to take place on it rather than the reverse, as he suggests.

§ Mr. Harold Wilson
Following the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), is the right hon. Gentleman, who has just referred to the Franks Report, able to tell us when we may expect a statement by the Government? It is an important report and has been available for very many months.
1457 Secondly, can he say when he intends to bring forward for the House to debate the unanimous Report of the Committee on Privileges which was signed, I believe, last year but which has not yet come before the House?

§ Mr. Prior
On the latter point, as I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have been trying to see whether we could avoid debating the matter, but I recognise that the House will want to come to a decision on it in the near future. It is a matter which I had hoped very much that I would be able to settle sensibly outside without having to waste the time of the House.
As to the Franks Report, I am not in a position to go any further at this stage. The Government have been considering the proposals, which are extremely complicated. We shall have to consider whether to wait for the Government's proposals or whether to have a debate before then. At present, I have nothing to add.

§ Mr. Maclennan
Did the right hon. Gentleman hear the views expressed on both sides of the House during Questions to the Minister of Agriculture that there was urgency in the need for the Government to introduce legislation to impose penalties for those found guilty of polluting the North Sea? Are the Government proposing to make time available for that Bill?

§ Mr. Prior
This relates to the antidumping of waste substances, or whatever the Bill is called. I recognise that this is an important measure. I doubt whether there will be time for it this Session, but it is obviously a Bill that should be introduced as soon as possible.

§ Mr. Cormack
May I ask my right hon. Friend again when we shall have a debate on the new parliamentary building? It is important that we should settle this matter early.

§ Mr. Prior
Not for a few weeks, I regret to say.

§ Mr. Jay
As a great deal of concern has been caused in London by unconfirmed reports of the recommendations of the Layfield Panel on London Motorways, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that report will be published next week, or whether we shall have a statement on it by the Government?

§ Mr. Prior
The answer to that is "Both, next week".

§ Mr. Adley
Reverting to the Fire Precautions (Loans) Bill to be completed this week, may I ask my right hon. Friend to use his good offices to bring about the meeting that was discussed and agreed upon by the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office in Committee between the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury and the Home Department for a full discussion on the Government's policy for tourism?

§ Mr. Prior
I shall draw my hon. Friend's question to my right hon. Friend's attention.

§ Mr. Peter Archer
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members would like an opportunity to express approval of some recent Government announcements in relation to the Icelandic fisheries dispute and examine their implications in a wider context? When, therefore, may the House debate Early Day Motion No. 96:

§ Mr. Prior
I am afraid that the House has a great deal of business ahead of it for the next five to six weeks and I do not foresee an early opportunity for debating these issues. The coming week is fairly full, and after that we begin to run into a very difficult period in the time of the House, and I cannot see any occasion in Government time when it will be possible to debate this issue.

§ Mr. Marten
Can my right hon. Friend elaborate on why apparently we have to wait three weeks after the price review has been completed before it is announced? Is not there a danger that it may leak during that period?

§ Mr. Prior
My hon. Friend must not jump to conclusions. The price review negotiations started only today, and therefore I am not in a position—nor is my right hon. Friend—to say when these negotiations will be concluded. But if we can produce it to the House at an early date we certainly shall. There is always the danger of leaks on these issues, as I know to my cost. I know that my right hon. Friend will want to produce it to the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

§ Mr. English
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that after seven weeks in the Common Market I have received two-thirds of the documents so far published in the legislative series of the Official Journal and 50 per cent. of the first two so far published in the communications series. I am glad to note the speed with which these arrived and the fact—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member must ask questions on the business statement. This is not the time for congratulations.

§ Mr. English
I apologise, Mr. Speaker. My congratulations were not wholehearted, as you may have realised. Can the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the House is a little better served? Can he see that something that has been discussed by the Common Market may be worth discussing in this Assembly after seven weeks?

§ Mr. Prior
As the hon. Gentleman knows, for one reason or another we have had trouble in getting all the documents that we have needed, but they are now beginning to come through a good deal more quickly and my impression is that the vast majority of hon. Members are getting as much information as they require, if not more.