HC Deb 19 February 1973 vol 851 cc28-30
43. Sir G. de Freitas

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will suggest to the Procedure Committee that it should examine the practice in the House under which White Papers are debated, in view of the fact that the Wheatley, Robens, Younger, Franks and Erroll Reports, presented in 1972, have not been debated.

Mr. Prior

No, Sir.

Sir G. de Freitas

Will the Leader or the House please reconsider this question? Everyone in the House knows that on several occasions, even with present legislation, we have been in danger in legislating when we have not had an opportunity beforehand of discussing important reports affecting the legislation? Is this not most undesirable?

Mr. Prior

I recognise the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making so far as the Procedure Committee is concerned. Such matters come within its terms of reference and it is for that Committee to decide which matters of business it is to examine. But on the general point I am, as far as the time of the House permits me, making a big effort to try to arrange for these reports and various matters to be discussed at the relevant time.

Mr. Arthur Davidson

Why does the right hon. Gentleman insist on bothering with the paraphernalia of another committee? Why does he not simply arrange an early debate on the Franks Report? It is really quite monstrous that a sinister and totally discredited Act should remain on the Statute Book and be used for a day longer than is necessary.

Mr. Prior

That is a rather different question from the one on the Order Paper. It is one which hon. Members have asked me about in questions on the business for the week. I recognise that the House would like to debate the Franks Committee's report at an early opportunity. I have said that the Government are still considering this, and I would have thought it better to wait till the Government have come to some conclusions, but I have noted what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Dalyell

On the Wheatley Committee's report on the safety of crowds at football grounds, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no one seriously disputes that these are really minimum recommendations necessary for crowd safety, and that the next time there is a major disaster like that at Ibrox the Government, whoever they are, will not be let off by public opinion?

Mr. Prior

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend, but I will see that he knows the hon. Member's views.

Mr. Michael Foot

Everyone in the House will recognise that all the reports referred to in the Question are important, but does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the report of the Franks Committee is one of special importance in its relation to the House of Commons and to the country as a whole? If the Government do not come forward with their views on that report we might have a situation in which questions of official secrets could occur and in which nobody would know the present position of the law—or, rather, a situation in which it would be assumed that those questions would be dealt with under the previous position of the law, whereas everyone knows that that committee is making special recommendations which should be considered. Therefore, will not the Government give specially urgent consideration to dealing with this matter, so that we shall not have invidious questions arising about the liberty of the subject, the power of the House of Commons and the power of the courts in such questions?

Mr. Prior

I am not disputing for one moment that this is a very important matter. The Government are giving special and urgent consideration to it, for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman. Whether or not it is wise to have a debate pending the Government's conclusions is a matter for the House to decide. It is really a matter for the House to decide, and this is something that we can discuss.

Mr. William Hamilton

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in answer to a Question by me a few weeks ago the Prime Minister indicated the importance of an early debate on the Floor of the House before the Government made their recommendations on the matter, because there are wide differences of opinions across parties and because it is important that the voice of the House should be heard even before the Government come forward with their proposals?

Mr. Prior

I have not with me the words of my right hon. Friend, but I will read them again in view of what the hon. Member has said. The question of finding time for a debate of this nature is a difficult one. If the House feels very strongly about it, obviously we shall have to give time for it.

Mr. Michael Foot

Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider very carefully what he has said in the House today? This is a matter which touches civil liberties at their very highest point. The matters dealt with in the reports have involved most difficult questions in the courts over recent months. In view of that reply by the Prime Minister, will the Leader of the House not consider whether the Government can give their views within a matter of, say, a couple of weeks, at any rate? There is an overpowering argument for their giving time to the House to give advice to the Government, who cannot make up their mind.

Mr. Prior

I will consider what the hon. Member has had to say, but I have been asked these questions on many occasions on Thursday afternoons. So far we have thought it better to wait till the Government have had more time to consider proposals. But I will bear the hon. Member's point in mind.