§ Mr. SpeakerBusiness Statement—the Lord President.
§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot)The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 5TH JULY—Supply [27th Allotted Day]: there will be a debate on immigration, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration of EEC Document R/2274/75 on Sheepmeat Régime.
TUESDAY 6TH JULY—Motion on the White Papers on Pay and Prices Policy and the related Orders.
659 Motion on Compensation for Limitation of Prices (British Gas Corporation) Order.
WEDNESDAY 7TH JULY—Supply [28th Allotted Day]: Conclusion of the debate on pay and prices policy.
Consideration of EEC Document R/3070/75 on Units of Measurement.
THURSDAY 8TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Race Relations Bill.
FRIDAY 9TH JULY—Debate on the First Report of the Select Committee on Direct Elections To The European Assembly, House of Commons Paper No. 489.
Consideration of EEC Documents R/1361/73 and R/877/75 on Public Service Contracts.
MONDAY 12TH JULY—Private Members' motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, Third Reading of the Development Land Tax Bill, and remaining stages of the Iron and Steel (Amendment) Bill.
§ Mrs. ThatcherI should like to raise just two points. The first is about the debate on Tuesday and Wednesday on pay and prices policy. On what motion will that debate be held? Will the Leader of the House make clear that the second day is a Supply Day which is only lent and not given, and that the Opposition would like it back, please? The Government are used to borrowing, so we want a little repayment.
The second point is that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the situation with regard to water supply is very serious indeed. Will he arrange for a statement to be made next week so that we know what emergency action should be taken before an emergency occurs?
§ Mr. FootI thank the right hon. Lady for both of her questions. I shall certainly try to return anything that we borrow, but I cannot promise to do so next week. Certainly I acknowledge that the Opposition have assisted us with the offer of a Supply Day to enable the House to have the two-day debate, which is of assistance to everyone. The debate would be, I think, on a "take note" motion. although obviously amendments could be put down if that were desired by the Opposition or anyone else. Then there 660 are the related Orders which, although I have set them down on the Tuesday, I imagine, if it were wished that they be voted upon, could be voted upon on the Wednesday.
I hope that a statement will be made to the House tomorrow about the drought.
§ Mr. GrimondWith his remarkable command of English, will the Leader of the House explain a little more about "sheepmeat regime"? My constituents know about sheep, meat and regime. It the phrase a direct translation from some Common Market document, or does it mean a diet for those who have to eat sheepmeat?
§ Mr. FootI do not think that it has anything to do with diet. I think that the phrase is due to the language used in Brussels, which we have to use in the House of Commons.
§ Mr. BidwellWhat form will the debate on Monday take on immigration? Will that be on a Government motion?
§ Mr. FootIt will be on the Adjournment. It is a Supply Day. It is a subject chosen by the Opposition.
§ Mr. PymAs the Leader of the House must be aware that the Council of Ministers has decided to change the proposals in the EEC document in relation to sheep-meat, would it not be more sensible to have a debate on that subject when the Council's present proposals have been produced so that we can get down to the new situation?
§ Mr. FootIf that is more convenient for the House, we shall do that. We were recommended by the Scrutiny Committee to have this debate, but if it is more convenient to have the debate at a later stage, we shall see whether we can do that—although there have been requests from the House that we should have some of these debates earlier.
§ Mr. Hugh JenkinsOnce again there will be great disappointment that the Public Lending Right Bill is not included in the business for next week. Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a matter that is not in contention between the two Front Benches? Is he further aware, therefore, that we could do with some non-contentious business? Would it not be a very good time to put in that 661 business? There have been occasions over the last two or three weeks when it could have been slipped in and we could have taken it. Why not take the opportunity now?
§ Mr. FootI fully share my hon. Friend's disappointment that we have not proceeded further with the Bill, but, once again, I give him the assurance that I have given him on two or three previous occasions. This is a Government measure that has the full backing of the Government and we wish to press ahead with it as soon as it is convenient for the House to do so.
§ Mr. Donald StewartWill the right hon. Gentleman accept that there was great resentment in the fishing communities at the betrayal of their interests by the original Tory negotiators before we entered the Common Market and that this was compounded by their Labour successors by fishing not being on the agenda in the renegotiations? Following the pusillanimous and unacceptable statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food this week, does the Leader of the House agree that it is now essential that we should have a debate on fishery limits as quickly as possible?
§ Mr. FootI am sorry that I cannot promise a debate on this important subject. I fear also that I cannot accept all the adjectives used by the hon. Gentleman. A statement was made on the subject by my right hon. Friend. We shall have to see what are the possibilities of a debate later.
§ Mr. GouldWhen will the Order giving effect to the EEC directive on eviscerated chickens be laid before the House? Will it be subject to the affirmative or the negative procedure?
§ Mr. FootI cannot yet give a date. I know that there is considerable feeling in many parts of the House about this matter and a desire that it should be debated, hut we shall have to see what are the possibilities for a debate.
§ Mr. John DaviesReturning to the subject of sheepmeat, the Leader of the House will no doubt be aware that since the Scrutiny Committee recommended this matter for debate, his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has, in evidence to the Scrutiny Committee, made it 662 abundantly clear that there were to be substantial changes to this particular proposal. Surely it would be wiser to wait until those substantial changes have been made and laid before us.
§ Mr. FootThere are some problems about the time that we would have available for debates later, but I fully acknowledge what the right hon. Gentleman said. Since in particular the Scrutiny Committee, over which he presides, has given us so much assistance on this matter, when he makes that suggestion I shall certainly give it serious consideration.
§ Mr. DalyellDoes my right hon. Friend recollect that last week various representations were made to him about medical facilities for urgent cases in the House? What would any of us say about a factory employing 3,000 people in any of our constituencies which did not have at any rate normal nursing facilities? Considering the number of Members, visitors, journalists and all those who work in this place, is it not a scandal that something is not done about this matter?
§ Mr. FootI quite agree. Following the representations made to me a week ago, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Prescott) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), we have taken some steps. I hope that by the beginning of next week we shall have some facilities provided in the House, with a State-registered nurse and facilities on the premises. I hope that they will be in operation at the beginning of next week, on a temporary basis. Thereafter, as soon as we can we shall have them on a permanent basis. That is what the House would want. Certainly we have got on with it as fast as we could.
§ Mr. PeytonWhy did we not have the usual statement yesterday on European business for July? Instead, there was a rather unsatisfactory Written Answer—in column 102 of Hansard—merely saying that a forecast of the business had been deposited in the Library. Will the right hon. Gentleman see whether we could go back to the former practice?
When is it likely that the House will have a chance of debating the considerable volume of paper which has been generated by the Department of the Environment—concerning rates, water and 663 transport? All three are awaiting the attention of the House.
§ Mr. FootOn the first question, I am not sure whether the commitment of the Government to have a statement on the EEC business ahead is absolute. I know that there have been statements on most occasions. If the commitment is absolute, I shall certainly see why it was not honoured on this occasion. I thought that there was some possibility of variation, but I shall examine the matter.
I shall not comment on each of the other matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman because I think that they have been raised previously. I cannot promise immediate debates on all those different subjects, although obviously they are all important subjects that will have to be debated in the House before we can proceed to legislation on them.
§ Mr. McCrindleDoes the Leader of the House accept that there are many who do not necessarily take the Government's view that the best way of obtaining representation for members of occupational pension schemes is through trade union representation? May we have a debate on this subject and the subject matter of the White Paper before the Government introduce legislation?
§ Mr. FootI cannot promise an early debate on this subject. I know that there is great interest in it in the House. The White Paper is being published. There is widespread discussion on the subject and I am sure that there will be plenty of time for full discussion before we come to laying legislation before the House.
§ Mr. CryerWill my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Industry or the Secretary of State for Trade about the use of selective import controls, because as investment is needed for British industry, we want some of that industry left in which to reinvest?
Does my right hon. Friend think that this is the weather to take a long cool look at the House of Lords, which he has been promising for some time, because we are facing obstruction on the Floor of this House and I am sure we shall face obtruction on the Floor of that House over some controversial legis- 664 lation? Can he now say whether we shall reassemble on 1st September and get the backlog of legislation out of the way? Does he not think that we should have a short summer break and come back to work early?
§ Mr. FootObviously the question of selective import controls is one of major economic policy. I cannot promise any statement on the subject although it could enter into the discussions which will take place on economic policy over the next few weeks. I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will take the opportunity to raise it.
In respect of a long cool look at the House of Lords, I cannot promise that we shall have a House of Lords (No. 3) Bill before the end of the recess. I do not believe that that would speed up the process. The House of Lords will have to take the legislation which we send from this House and, undoubtedly, very important legislation will be going to the House of Lords in the near future. I hope that the House of Lords will understand that this is legislation which comes from this elected House of Commons.
As for the date of 1st September, I do not have any statement to make on that subject. What I have said before is that it is the Government's intention to suit the convenience of the House as much as we possibly can but also to ensure that our legislation will be carried through.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasIn view of the humiliating collapse of the Government last night in respect of the Education Bill, and the fact that no mention has been made of the Education Bill at all in next week's business, does this confirm the rumour going around the House that the Government will now drop this unwanted Bill?
§ Mr. FootThe hon. Gentleman must be the only Member of this House who is unwise enough to believe so foolish a rumour. There is, of course, no possibility that the Government will drop the Bill. What we hope is that we shall make considerable progress on the Bill today. We are providing plenty of time for the Bill, and I hope that we shall make more progress than we made yesterday. There was certainly no humiliation of the Government yesterday. We won 665 all the debates and all the votes. Unfortunately, there were not as many votes as we would wish, but we hope that that will be remedied in future.
§ Mr. TorneyWould my right hon. Friend not agree that a more accurate answer to the question put to him by the acting Leader of the Liberal Party, in respect of the sheepmeat regime, would have been for him to explain to the House that the real meaning is that we can have a huge surplus mountain of mutton and lamb in the same way as we have in respect of beef, butter and milk powder?
§ Mr. FootIf I had replied in those terms I might have been accused of introducing a controversial note, and the House knows how loath I am to do that.
§ Sir Frederic BennettThe Leader of the House will probably have noticed the Early-Day Motion directing our attention to the presence in the country of a visitor from the Soviet Union which is just about as distasteful as that of Mr. Shelepin. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to make a statement on this matter, including not just this specific matter, but a more general one which would clarify the criteria on which this Government seem to admit some people to this country and not others? They are criteria which the rest of us find totally incomprehensible.
§ [That this House deplores the welcome extended by Her Majesty's Government to Professor Marat Vartanyan, self-confessed exponent of the use of psychiatry, including the compulsory administration of dangerous drugs and enforced detention in mental institutions in order to bring about the so-called political reform of dissidents, and the Kremlin's chief expert in this detestable perversion of medical ethics and practice; condemns the rôle, in particular, in his sustained persecution of Professor Bukovsky, endangering his life; and regards Her Majesty's Government's action as yet another shocking example of politically-motivated double standards, when looked at in the context of its recent refusal of entry to young Rhodesians to play cricket here solely on grounds of disapproval of some of their home government's political policies.]
666§ Mr. FootI certainly do not accept the terms of the motion in the name of the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends. The gentleman to whom he refers is not in this country as a guest of the British Government. He is here as an individual, and that raises no question of political decisions such as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. The hon. Gentleman's motion compares that visit with the Rhodesian situation, and the Rhodesian visit, but that was a question of giving support to an illegal régime. I am sorry that a motion giving comfort to an illegal régime should have been placed on the Order Paper by those who are supposed to uphold law and order.
§ Mr. Raphael TuckCan my right hon. Friend tell the House who is the Secretary of the Services Committee so that we can have a go at him before prices rise any further? I had to pay 25p for one baked apple.
§ Mr. FootI do not know whether I am responsible for my hon. Friend's apple but I am responsible for the Services Committee. If he wants to have a go at anyone on this subject he must have a go at me.
§ Mr. Fletcher-CookeWill the right hon. Gentleman ensure that amendments to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, which will be necessary to give effect to his undertakings to the Scottish and Welsh National Parties, will be put down in good time so that these privileges may be examined to see whether they are not, in themselves, giving rise to further hybridity?
§ Mr. FootI am sure that such a possibility will not arise. Of course, we shall put down amendments in good time so that the House can discuss them. That is the proper way to proceed. It is most unfortunate that an Early-Day Motion should have been put down criticising those who had discussed the matter in the debate but we shall have time to discuss this matter further. That is what I said in reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who interrupted me during the debate, and that is the normal procedure in the House.
§ [That this House deplores the conduct of the Scottish and Welsh Nationalist Members of Parliament in declining to cast their votes at the end of the debate 667 on Aircraft and Shipbuilding Nationalisation on 29th June; is amazed that their change of heart was secured by an ambiguous and threadbare series of so-called assurances; notes with concern the prospect of a further extension of nationalisation which has already done so much damage to vital Scottish and Welsh industries like steel; expresses its contempt for political parties which seek to gather support on the basis of facing all ways on vital issues which affect the Scottish and Welsh nations and their peoples; and questions the concern for their country of Members of Parliament who refuse to vote against proposals to spend £300 million of taxpayers' money on nationalisation at a time when vital social services are being cut back because of shortage of public funds.]
§ Mr. JayIf the debate on sheepmeat is to be postponed, may we at least have an assurance that the Minister of Agriculture will not sell the pass in Brussels before the debate is held?
§ Mr. FootI cannot accept such language, of course, but I understand that my right hon. Friend would desire that a debate on the matter takes place before decisions are taken at Brussels. That is the general term of the undertaking which has been given by the Government. My right hon. Friend knows that there has been some qualification of this, but that is what we are seeking to carry out.
§ Mr. Peter MillsReturning to the regulation about poultry health, why cannot the Government bring this Order before the House? Does the Leader of the House realise that many poultry farmers, and those connected with the industry, are deeply concerned about this and must know where they stand? If I may say so, even the birds would like to know whether they will be eviscerated.
§ Mr. CorbettCan the Leader of the House promise a debate on the interim report of the Royal Commission on the Press before the recess?
§ Mr. FootI am sorry but I cannot do so because the time before the recess is taken up with extremely urgent business, 668 and I cannot promise debates on many important subjects such as that raised by my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. TebbitHas the Lord President noticed, perhaps because of the weather, or because of the Government's legislative programme, that a great many Members on both sides of the House have fallen to discussing the possible dates for the recess? Would he not agree, particularly for those hon. Members who have children at school, and family commitments, that it would be highly desirable if we did not behave in this somewhat odd way over the options open to the Government in this matter? Would he not agree that it would be better if he said early what the Government's intentions were concerning rising, and a possible return in September, or a possible extension of the Session beyond the normal time in October if the Government think fit?
§ Mr. FootI agree with the hon. Gentleman—particularly because of the representations which are made by those who have their family holidays fixed. I certainly appreciate that this is one of the factors which the Government have to take into account. The Government have difficulties of their own, too. I have already indicated that there will be a statement tomorrow about the water situation, and that may involve some extra time. That has to be taken into account, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter he has raised is one of the considerations that we are taking into account. Of course I would like to announce the dates much earlier, but I am sure the House appreciates what the difficulties are.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. May I appeal to to the House? If hon. Members will ask crisp questions I will try to get everyone in, but I can only try.
§ Mr. George CunninghamDoes my right hon. Friend remember that it is about five weeks since the House set up the Sessional Committee on Procedure, the normal Procedure Committee, and that it is not free to do anything at all, even to meet, until the House refers some subject to it? Exactly why has my right Friend not brought forward a motion to 669 refer anything to that Committee yet? Will he do so soon?
§ Mr. FootMy hon. Friend has a very good grievance. We should have put forward some of those proposals and I will do my best—I will not say to satisfy him, because that is always difficult—to go some way to satisfying him next week.
§ Mr. MayhewWill there be an early Bill to ratify the European Patent Convention? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the European Patent Office will open in Munich early next year and that United Kingdom patent agents stand to lose about 10,000 patent applications unless we ratify by then, with a possible loss of £10 million turnover to this country?
§ Mr. FootI appreciate what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. The matter has been raised with me. I cannot promise immediate legislation on the subject, but I appreciate the importance of the matter.
§ Mr. Frank AllaunFollowing the conviction of Jersey Aviation Limited for supplying £l¼ million-worth of arms from the MoD depot at Chigwell to South Africa, may we have—in fact, are we not entitled to—an immediate statement from the Secretary of State for Defence, since his Department must have known the ultimate destination and if it did not know, it should have known, and was guilty of gross negligence? As there are other serious allegations of arms being supplied from this country to South Africa, are we not entitled to a statement from the Secretary of State?
§ Mr. FootI will ask my right hon. Friend whether he will consider a statement in the light of what my hon. Friend has said.
§ Mr. MoateIf the right hon. Gentleman decides to defer the debate on Monday on the sheepmeat régime, would he seriously consider using the time to try to complete the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—bearing in mind that we have almost reached the end of that Bill and that it could be disposed of quite quickly?
§ Mr. FootThe hon. Gentleman may have noted that his proposal has not met with immediate unanimous acceptance. 670 I shall consider the suggestion, but if we postpone—as we probably should—the sheepmeat régime discussion, we shall have to see what is the best course for the House.
§ Mr. SpearingOn Friday week, 9th July, my right hon. Friend has said that there will be a debate on direct elections and EEC documents on public service contracts. What is the nature of the motion that he will table?
§ Mr. Eldon GriffithsIn view of the Prime Minister's change of mind about the Official Secrets Act and the general wish of the House that this legislation should be reformed, will the Leader of the House arrange before the recess for a short debate on that Act? Before he replies, may I put one crisp point to him? Many of us recall how difficult it was to persuade the United States to give us access to nuclear secrets because of their concern about British security. As long as this matter is hanging around unanswered, there will be feelings in Washington, justified or otherwise, that there still may be a "sleeper" in Whitehall willing to give Western military secrets to our mutual enemies.
§ Mr. FootI think that the Prime Minister has dealt with the general matter in a way satisfactory to the House as a whole. I cannot promise a debate on the Official Secrets Act in general before the recess, but clearly what the Prime Minister has said is that fresh consideration is to be given to the question whether there should be legislation on the matter. The favourable reply that he has given on that subject is helpful and of course legislation would mean a debate in the House.
§ Mr. McNamaraHas my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the Early-Day Motion, signed by nearly 100 hon. Members on this side, calling for an early statement by the Government on their acceptance of the principle of the need for decasualisation in the fishing industry? Is he aware of the deep resentment on Humberside and in the fishing ports that the Government failed to make this announcement as part of the statement on Monday?
§ [That this House welcomes the statement of the Minister of Agriculture, 671 Fisheries and Food that the Government will discuss with the unions and employers the feasibility of an arrangement for compensation for those fishermen directly affected by the Icelandic settlement who, because they do not have regular contracts of employment, are denied the benefits they might have otherwise received under the Redundancy Payments Acts: reminds the Government that this situation would not have arisen if fishermen enjoyed the same terms and conditions of employment as shore-based workers; and calls upon the Government to declare its commitment to the immediate decasualisation of the fishing industry and to initiate discussions with the Transport and General Workers Union and the vessel owners to ensure that objective.]
§ Mr. FootI know that there are considerable feelings on this subject. When I was at the Department of Employment I took part in discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture on the possibilities of decasualisation. In view of the number of the signatories to that motion, I recognise that there is strong feeling on this side on the matter. I cannot promise immediate action but I am sure that the Government will recognise that this is the line on which my hon. Friends wish us to proceed.
§ Mr. BoscawenIn view of the grave situation facing the shoe manufacturing industry, which situation is going on and on, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade to make an early statement on what he is doing about it, if anything?
§ [That this House would welcome Government Ministers, when proclaiming their support of an incomes policy, drawing attention to the fact that hundreds of Peers of the Realm are appointed to well-paid part-time jobs, or on a tax-free expense allowance, and asks the following when declaring their support for an incomes policy to state their various appointments and incomes derived therefrom:
| Body | Name and Appointment | Amount of Salary or fee |
| Equal Opportunities Commission | Lord Allen of Fallowfield, member (part-time) | £16 per day |
| BBC | Lord Allan of Kilmahew (part-time) | £1,000 per annum |
| Lord Feather of the City of Bradford (part-time) | ||
| Lord Greenhill of Harrow (part-time) | ||
| Community Relations Commission | Lord Pitt, Deputy Chairman (part-time) | £1,500 per annum |
| Lord Campbell of Eskan (part-time) | £16 per day | |
| Baroness Serota (part-time) | ||
| Women's Royal Voluntary Service | Baroness Pike, Chairman (part-time) | £6,000 per annum |
| Port of London Authority | Lord Aldington, Chairman (part-time) | £10,000 per annum |
| Milton Keynes New Town Development Corporation | Lord Campbell of Eskan, Chairman (part-time) | £7,415 per annum |
§ Mr. FootI cannot promise an early statement. My right hon. Friend has made statements on the subject, I understand, in the not-too-distant past, but I shall see whether a fresh statement is required.
§ Mrs. Winifred EwingIn considering the date of the recess, may I take it that the Lord President understands that Scottish school children get their holidays at the end of June and go back to school on 14th August? Will he bear that in mind when he tries to take us into August?
§ Mr. FootI am not sure whether it is more beneficial to the House that we should have the hon. Lady's presence or her absence. Sometimes it is one, sometimes the other, and we shall try to work the matter out conveniently for both of us.
§ Mr. Arthur LewisHas my right hon. Friend seen the three Early-Day Motions signed by one of the most important Members of the House, drawing attention to the hundreds of millions of pounds per year which are being paid out to Members of the House of Lords on a part-time basis? They are drawing thousands of pounds each in expenses which could be cut without hardship or suffering for anyone. When the Government consider any such cuts, will they make these as quick and severe as possible? Hon. Members on this side would give 100 per cent. support to such action.
| British Waterways Board | Lord Feather of the City of Bradford, Vice-Chairman (part-time) | £2,250 per annum |
| Housing Corporation | Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, Deputy Chairman (part-time) | £3,840 per annum |
| Development Commission | Lord Northfield, Chairman (part-time) | £5,000 per annum |
| Telford New Town Development Corporation | Lord Northfield, Chairman (part-time) | £4,432 per annum |
| Commissioners for Local Administration in England] | Baroness Serota, Chairman (part-time) | £13,310 per annum |
§ [That this House would welcome Government Ministers, when proclaiming their support of an incomes policy, drawing attention to the fact that hundreds of Peers of the Realm are appointed to well-paid part-time jobs, or on a tax-free expense allowance, and asks the following when declaring their support for an incomes policy to state their various appointments and incomes derived therefrom:
| Body | Name and Appointment | Amount of Salary after Tax |
| Chairman of the Council on Tribunals | Lord Tweedsmuir (part-time) | £5,164 per annum |
| British National Oil Corporation | Lord Balogh, Deputy Chairman (part-time) | £8,950 per annum |
| National Water Council | Lord Nugent (part-time) | £8,450 per annum |
| British Railways Board | Lord Taylor of Gryfe (part-time) | £3,000 per annum |
| Welsh National Water Development Authority | Lord Brecon (part-time) | £6,175 per annum |
| The Land Authority for Wales | Lady White (part-time) | £6,500 per annum |
| Cwmbran Development Corporation | Lord Raglan (part-time) | £4,432 per annum |
| Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Panel | Lord Briginshaw (part-time) | £1,000 per annum |
| British National Oil Corporation | Lord Briginshaw (part-time) | £1,000 per annum |
| Clwyd Area Health Authority | Lord Kenyon, Chairman (part-time) | £2,000 per annum |
| Telford New Town Corporation | Viscount Boyne, Deputy Chairman (part-time) | £1,966 per annum |
| British Waterways Board | Baroness White (part-time) | £1,000 per annum |
| Local Government Staff Commission | Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, Chairman (part-time) | £250 per annum |
| National Freight Corporation | Lord Greene of Harrow and Weald (part-time) | £1,000 per annum |
| Northampton New Town Development Corporation | Lord Hirshfield, Deputy Chairman (part-time) | £1,966 per annum |
| Warrington New Town Development Corporation | Lord Hamnett, Chairman (part-time) | £4,432 per annum |
| Southern Electricity Board | Lord Greene of Harrow and Weald (part-time) | £1,000 per annum |
| UK Atomic Energy Authority | Lord Kearton (part-time) | £1,000 per annum |
| Central Electricity Generating Board | Lord Kearton (part-time) | £1,000 per annum] |
§ [That this House would welcome Government Ministers, when proclaiming their support of an incomes policy, drawing attention to the fact that hundreds of Peers of the Realm are appointed to well-paid part-time jobs, or on a tax-free expense allowance, and asks the following when declaring their support for an incomes policy to state their various appointments and incomes derived therefrom:
| Body | Name and Appointment | Amount of Fee or Salary |
| British Steel Corporation | Lord Layton (full-time member) | £21,830 per annum |
| British Steel Corporation | Viscount Weir (part-time member) | £1,000 per annum |
| British Steel Corporation | Lord Gregson (part-time member) | £1,000 per annum |
| National Enterprise Board Chairman | Lord Ryder (part-time chairman) | £31,850 per annum |
| National Research Development Corporation | Lord Schon (part-time chairman) | £2,000 per annum |
| Post Office | Lord Pitt (part-time member) | £1,000 per annum |
| East Kilbride & Stonehouse Development Corporation | Lord Hughes (part-time chairman) | £4,432 per annum |
| Forestry Commission | Lord Taylor of Gryfe, D.L. (part-time chairman) | £6,200 per annum |
| Meat & Livestock Commission Consumers Committee | Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath (part-time chairman) | £1,390 per annum |
| Meat & Livestock Commission | As above (part-time member) | £1,000 per annum |
| Review Board for Government Contracts | Viscount Caldecote, D.S.C. (part-time) | £1,350 per annum |
| Value Added Tax Tribunals | The Lord Jacques (part-time) | £20 per day plus travel expenses |
| Special Adviser to the Chancellor | Professor Lord Kaldor (part-time) | £14,000 per annum |
| Northern Ireland Tourist Board | Lord O'Neil, D.L., T.D. (part-time) | £1,000 per annum plus £750 per annum expenses and travelling and other expenses incurred on business outside of Northern Ireland |
| Board of the Local Enterprise Development Unit | Marquis of Hamilton (part-time) | £1,350 per annum plus £513.05 expenses |
§ Mr. FootI do not think that the matter can be dealt with by that method, but I am sure that the terms of my hon. Friend's motions will be noted by those concerned.
§ Mr. Tom KingDid the right hon. Gentleman hear the Prime Minister's statement that the only agreement reached with the nationalist parties was that contained in his own speech at the close of Tuesday's debate? Would he therefore explain how a statement has been released by Plaid Cymru which includes, in what it calls the "package" agreed with the Government, a whole lot of matters not disclosed to the House, including the possibility of a referendum, and the statement:
A further significant commitment has been given by the Government which cannot be disclosed at this time."?
§ Mr. FootI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. Certainly nothing was agreed by the Government outside what I stated to the House. Any statements about agreements on referenda or anything of the sort are completely without foundation. What was put to the House in the debate was in my speech. That is the situation and that is what we stand by. Of course, it was also made clear by me in the debate that it was on the basis of that statement that we should be able to proceed to later discussions and to any amendments if hon. Members wished to put them down.
§ Mr. MartenI am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has noticed Early-Day 676 Motion No. 477 entitled "Hot Weather and Cool Dress" for the staff.
§ [That this House believes that during the summer months, and particularly when the temperature is above average, the stall of this House should be more appropriately attired; and that this matter be referred to the appropriate quarters for action without delay.]
§ That motion requires action. What action has been taken? Will he take some next week?
§ May I support the general campaign for eviscerated chicken to be put on the menu for debate in this House because we want to chuck it out before the recess?
§ Mr. FootI have already answered the question about eviscerated chicken. I know how many hon. Members wish to have a debate on the subject. As for cooler dress, relaxations have been arranged, I understand. I am all in favour of them and believe that they should apply to Members of Parliament, too. I do not see why we should go around dressed like a bunch of disappointed, dyspeptic stockbrokers. Hon. Members might set the fashion for the members of staff and I hope, that the members of staff will have every encouragement to dress as suitably as they can to such a season.
§ Mr. Ronald BellWill the right hon. Gentleman think carefully before postponing the debate on the sheepmeat regime, bearing in mind that in these agricultural matters "too soon" quickly becomes "too late"? We want to have this debate in the formative stage and 677 not after the final proposals have been formulated.
§ Mr. FootI appreciate the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was for that reason that the motion was put down for discussion on Monday next. However, I have received representations, including representations from the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), that we should postpone it because there has been a considerable alteration in the Order. I will look at the matter in the light of both representations and see what may be convenient for the House. I will also take into account what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), that the House wants a debate before a decision is taken.
§ Mr. CormackSo that we may debate the highly controversial legislation still before the House in proper detail without a guillotine motion, will the Leader of the House agree that this Session should be extended until Christmas and the next Session truncated?
§ Mr. AitkenDoes the Lord President recall that the House was promised a debate on foreign affairs before the Summer Recess and can he give an assurance that, despite the muddled situation of the Government's programme, that promise will be kept?
§ Mr. FootSince I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's premise about a muddle I cannot agree with his conclusion, and I cannot promise a debate on foreign affairs before the recess. I will see what was said and whether we are bound by any undertaking, but I have indicated that we have a serious amount of legislation and other important business to transact, and I am sure that the House would wish to put first things first.
§ Mr. Raphael TuckA few minutes ago my right hon. Friend told me that if I wanted to have a go at anybody on account of the food served in the House, I should have a go at him. Can you inform me, Mr. Speaker, whether that means that my right hon. Friend is responsible for eight hon. Members who had to be nodded through the Division Lobby last week because they had contracted 678 food poisoning from House of Commons food?
§ Mr. SpeakerIs the Lord President seeking to answer the point of order?
§ Mr. SpeakerI was just about to tell the House that I intended to make an exception by calling the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) but in general, once I have drawn attention to the fact that I want crisp questions, if people have not been rising earlier seeking to be called, I do not intend to call them, or the debate will go on until the recess.
§ Mr. NobleWill my right hon. Friend note that renegotiation of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement will shortly begin and, in view of that and of the fact that the Government have not succeeded, during the present negotiations, in establishing more than a framework, does he agree that we should have an early debate on these negotiations, so that hon. Members representing textile constituencies can make their views known?
§ Mr. FootI certainly appreciate the position of the textile industry and the difficulties it is now encountering. On a number of occasions my hon. Friends concerned have drawn these to the attention of my right hon. Friends concerned. I will see whether there are possibilities for arranging for further such representations, but I fear that I cannot promise an actual debate on the subject. Possibly there could be a further statement.
§ Mr. Raphael TuckMr. Speaker, I have not had an answer to my question.
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not know the answer. That is why I tried to forget it.