HC Deb 12 February 1976 vol 905 cc624-34
Mr. Speaker

Mr. Short. Business Statement.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short)

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 16TH FEBRUARY—Until about 7 o'clock, Second Reading of the Road Traffic (Drivers' Ages and Hours of Work) Bill [Lords], followed by Second Reading of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].

Motion on the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order.

TUESDAY 17TH FEBRUARY—Until about 7 p.m., motion relating to the proceedings at the end of the Supply debate on Wednesday 11th February.

Second Reading of the Trustee Savings Banks Bill [Lords].

Motion on EEC Documents R/2662/75 and R/2663/75 on nuclear safety.

WEDNESDAY 18TH FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Water Charges Bill.

Motion on the Counter-Inflation (Price Code) (Amendment) Order.

THURSDAY 19TH FEBRUARY—Supply [9th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the fishing industry, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 20TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 23RD FEBRUARY—Supply [10th Allotted Day]: debate on a topic to be announced.

Mrs. Thatcher

May I ask the Leader of the House to say a little more about the motion we shall have on Tuesday relating to last night's business? There are two separate points. The first concerns what the Government intend to do about that motion. The second concerns the attitude of the Cabinet taken at the time and announced from the Dispatch Box. We are well able to find precedents for decisions of the House being varied by later decisions, but we have not been able to find a precedent in which a Cabinet Minister has come to the Dispatch Box wishing it to be recorded that the Government did not accept the decision of the House. As Leader of the House, surely the right hon. Gentleman will not wish that statement, which doubtless was made in he heat of the moment, to stand.

Mr. Short

The effect of the motion passed last night was an expression of opinion that the salary of the Secretary of State for Industry should be cut by £1,000.

Mrs. Thatcher

Of the House.

Mr. Short

It was an expression of opinion of the House, yes. The effects of the motion which I propose to put down on Tuesday will be to give the House an opportunity to restore the position to what it was before last night's motion was passed. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] I understand that the House would want that opportunity.

Mrs. Thatcher

The Leader of the House has not yet answered the second part of my question relating to the statement by a member of the Government that he wished it to be recorded that the Government did not accept the decision that the House had just reached.

Mr. Short

I should have thought that the fact that I had announced a motion to restore the position to what it was before was the reply to that. [Hon. Members: "No."]

Mr. Thorpe

The Leader of the House has been kind enough to offer the House an opportunity to reflect and to reconsider its decision. Are we to take it that this is to be a mutually applicable doctrine which he has enunciated and that, whenever there is a solid body of opinion on one side or the other which happens to disagree, three or four days later we shall have another motion so that we may have a second bite at the cherry?

Mr. Short

I am having enough difficulty in answering questions on business next week without trying to deal with the hypothetical question of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ian Lloyd

Can the Leader of the House tell us why the Government are reluctant to find time for an urgent debate on events in Angola and South Africa?

Mr. Short

This is simply a matter of shortage of time. I have told the hon. Gentleman that I will bear in mind the question of Southern Africa, and when an opportunity arises we will have a debate in which these matters can be discussed.

Mr. Brittan

Will the Leader of the House accept that there is all the difference in the world between not accepting a decision of the House and asking the House subsequently to alter its decision? Will he not accept that it is constitutionally quite unacceptable for a Cabinet Minister to say that, while a decision of the House is standing, it is not accepted by the Government?

Mr. Short

I am giving the House an opportunity to reverse its decision. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes

Can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say when the Green or White Paper report on direct elections to the European Assembly is likely to be published, so that the House may have an opportunity to debate this important subject at an early date?

Mr. Short

The Paper, which will be Green—or a good deal more green than white—will be published next week, though I do not know the exact date. But there will certainly be an opportunity to debate it.

Mr. Thompson

Will the Leader of the House tell us when he will bring forward legislation for Scotland analogous to the Water Charges Bill, so that Scottish ratepayers who do not receive mains sewerage and mains water will not have to pay for these services, as they do at present under legislation of the last Tory Administration?

Mr. Short

I will certainly pass on to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Hooley

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us believe that we should be notified of business at least 10 days ahead instead of only five? Further to that point, we have no information on the subject of the debate to be held on Monday week. I am aware that this is the fault of the Opposition, but will my right hon. Friend make clear that we need proper notice of debates?

Mr. Short

The announcement of the subject for debate on the following Monday week is an innovation which is working reasonably well, but the Opposition cannot give us a subject for that day and we understand that. It is, however, of value to the House to know that it is to be a Supply Day.

Mr. Tebbit

Is the Leader of the House able to tell us whether the House will have as much time to make up its mind on the debate on whether it should restore the reduction in the salary of the Secretary of State for Energy as we had before hon. Members made up their minds that his salary should be cut? Will there be a full half-day's debate on the matter? Anything less would be inadequate.

Mr. Short

The time for the debate will be exactly the same as the House had yesterday, and the motion will apply itself exactly to the wording of the Opposition's original motion.

Mr. Jessel

Is the Leader of the House aware of Early-Day Motion No. 194, tabled last night, which has already been signed by 100 right hon. and hon. Members, urging the early reintroduction by the Government of the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill?

[That this House, conscious of the experience of other countries, and of the Government's own estimates, believes that the compulsory wearing of seat belts would save at least 1,000 lives and avert 10,000 serious injuries each year, reminds the Government of its undertakings to introduce legislation and urges it to provide time, without further delay, for the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the official figure that this measure would save 1,000 lives a year and prevent 10,000 persons being seriously injured each year? Will he say when the Government are going to act on this?

Mr. Short

I cannot comment upon the figures but I can give the hon. Gentleman a little more hope than previously. I hope that there will be an opportunity in the fairly near future to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Grocott

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the Early-Day Motion concerning proxy voting for people who are genuinely sick? In the light of the events of the last week, would he not agree that we make ourselves look absolutely ridiculous in the eyes of people outside this Chamber when we wheel in people who are genuinely sick? Does he not agree that if any one of us had in our constituency a factory or an office where that kind of industrial relations obtained, we would consider it absolutely ridiculous? Therefore, may we have a debate on this as soon as possible?

[That this House, appalled by the possible serious danger to the health of a number of hon. Members occasioned by the irresponsible refusal of the official Opposition to pair sick hon. Members, calls upon the House, as a matter of urgency, to introduce proxy voting for the sick.]

Mr. Short

It is a question of history repeating itself. Exactly the same demand arose in the past when we had to bring sick Members to the House. It culminated one night early in November 1965, when one of my hon. Friends, the then Member for St. Helens, was forced on to the premises by the refusal of the party opposite to pair, and he was brought in unconscious in an ambulance. As a result, the two sides signed an agreement that sick Members would be paired. I signed it as Chief Whip and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) signed it on behalf of the Conservative Opposition.

That is an honourable and binding agreement between honourable people, and it is still in existence, but one paragraph in it reads: in the event of such a breakdown in pairing arrangements, it will be open to the Government to propose the immediate introduction of proxy voting as recommended by the Select Committee on Procedure. If the party opposite wishes to abrogate this agreement, we shall feel free to look at this question again.

Mr. Stephen Ross

Is the Leader of the House aware that many glasshouse growers are facing almost immediate bankruptcy but that for two years we in this House have never had a proper debate on horticulture? Will he make sure that we get one before it is too late.

Mr. Short

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and that of many hon. Members, and I shall certainly bear in mind what he has said.

Mr. Peyton

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has rather sprung the question of pairing on the House in his Business Statement? There is some room for discussion to clear up the position as to the understanding between the present Chief Whips, because it may vary from what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we shall await with a good deal of interest the terms of the motion we are to debate on Tuesday? Is he also aware that we shall be very interested during the course of that debate to hear anything from Ministers to sum up their own attitudes to decisions of the House of Commons? We hope that they will take the opportunity to make quite clear that decisions of this House are treated with respect.

Mr. Short

I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said in the second part of his question. I take such decisions very seriously. That is why this motion is being put down. So far as his first point is concerned, this was an agreement signed on 24th November 1965 headed Memorandum of Agreement between the Government and Opposition Chief Whips as to voting arrangements for sick Members". As far as we are all aware, that agreement is still in existence.

Mr. Whitelaw

The right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to refer to me, but would it not have been fairer to me to have told me beforehand that he was going to do so? Secondly, while certainly my signature would bind me personally, I do not believe that either the right hon. Gentleman or I—[Interruption.]—can bind two Chief Whips or future Parliaments, particularly since we understand—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confirm—that there has been a subsequent arrangement between the present Chief Whips. In that case, therefore, is it not unreasonable for him to have acted in the way he has?

Mr. Short

No. This reply arose out of a supplementary question. The right hon. Gentleman signed the agreement and it is still in force. Of course, it continues until it is agreed that it should be repealed. We understand that this is an honourable agreement between honourable people, and it should be honoured.

Mr. Thorpe

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to agreements which, it is accepted, were between the official Opposition and the Government, but he spoke of Chief Whips in the plural, which could mean two or three. Can he make perfectly plain, because this is important for the record, that when my Chief Whip offered an arrangement to the Government in respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who was sick but was prepared to be paired with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), who also was sick, it was subsequently accepted by the Government Chief Whip but too late for action to be invoked?

Mr. Short

I do not know about that, but if the right hon. Gentleman says that, I accept what he says. This agreement is headed as being between the Opposition Chief Whip and the Government Chief Whip.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that the Leader of the Liberal Party knew, as the House knew, that what the right hon. Gentleman said was not a point of order. He was making his point in a way which others do but which I do not encourage. May I express the hope that the usual channels will solve this problem between them, because there is—

Mr. Humphrey Atkins

rose—

Mr. Speaker

I will call the right hon. Gentleman. There is a major statement to be made, I understand, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and there will be points of order after that before we get to the day's business.

Mr. Atkins

The Leader of the House referred to an agreement made by himself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) and said that he thought it ought to stay in force until a new one had been entered into. Perhaps I might inform him that a new one has been entered into by myself and the Government Chief Whip.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish)

I confess immediately to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) informed me that he did not agree with the agreement which had been in force. I had no alternative but to accept the position that he then laid out.

Hon. Members

Withdraw!

Mr. Whitelaw

I have no wish to prolong the proceedings or to exacerbate them, but, in view of what has been said, I think that the Leader of the House owes it to me at least to say that he has misled the House and, therefore, has been very unfair to me in the process in implying that I—my party—had gone back on my word. That was what he did, and I hone that he will apologise to me.

Hon. Members

Withdraw!

Mr. Short

The Conservative Party refused to pair sick Members for the debate. That is agreed, both on the agreement with the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) and on the new agreement to which the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) has referred.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey)

rose—

Mr. Fernyhough

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since documents have been referred to but have not been laid on the Table, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will publish them to tomorrow's Hansard?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order. [Hon. Members: "It is."] No, it is a question to the Government. We shall always get into difficulties if disagreements between the usual channels are brought to the Floor of the House.

Mr. Wiggin

The Leader of the House raised it.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am not saying who are the innocent or guilty parties: I am merely saying that I think that the usual channels should settle the matter.

Mr. Ridley

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order to take the heat out of this situation, might I propose, under Standing Order No. 9, that we have a debate on this matter, which is specific, urgent and of public importance? The matters which have just been brought out show that there is a total lack of communication between the Patronage Secretary—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has not yet reached the time when an application under Standing Order No. 9 should be made.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance in trying to make it plain to the House and, therefore, to the country that whatever agreements there may be between the Front Benches about pairing those who are sick in no way inhibit the rights and duties of all Members of all parties to vote in any debate on any subject in the way in which they see fit, provided it is clear that whatever agreements and pairing arrangements they might privately make are no longer valid for that debate. It would appear to someone listening to recent points of order that the result of any Division can be decided between the two Chief Whips concerned. I am seeking your guidance about the protection of the rights of Back Benchers and minorities. It would be most unfortunate if that impression were left by this interchange.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member and am grateful for the way in which he spoke. As he and everyone else knows, officially I know nothing about Whips. As far as I am concerned, hon. Members always vote according to their consciences.

Mr. Cormack

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I think that the House could do with some advice on a very different point. It is a very well-established tradition—indeed, a rule of the House—that if, after one has tabled a Question and it has been answered, one goes to the Table Office to table the same Question, it is ruled out of order. The Leader of the House has announced today that the same business will be debated next week as we debated yesterday, the House having made its decision. Could you reflect on this, Mr. Speaker, and give a ruling on Monday?

Mr. Speaker

The difference is that the Government decide the business that they will bring before the House. I think that I am right, although that is an off-the-cuff ruling.

Mrs. Thatcher

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have dealt with this matter as if it were a matter between the two Chief Whips. With respect, it is not now a matter between the two Chief Whips. The Leader of the House has made an allegation against two of my right hon. Friends about a question of fact which could be easily ascertained. Is it not right that, as Leader of the House, he should withdraw that allegation until the facts have been found?

Mr. Short

So far as the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border is concerned, if that agreement has been withdrawn and another substituted for it, then of course—I have known the right hon. Gentleman for many years—the last thing I would accuse him of is dishonourable conduct. But out of the mouth of the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) we heard that there was another agreement. That agreement was broken the other night.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is certainly not a matter for me. I gather that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) is satisfied.