BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 7 November 1979)

§ Mr. Speaker
Statement—Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

§ Mr. English
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May this statement be deferred until after the 30-second introduction of the Bill so that at least one Cabinet Minister can be questioned when we have read the text of the Bill?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am afraid that I must follow the normal procedure in the House. Statements come first.

§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short Business Statement.
The business tomorrow will now be proceedings on the Southern Rhodesia Bill. The business previously announced for Thursday will be postponed until next week.

§ Mr. Merlyn Rees
We have already discussed the problem of timing in the Rhodesian context, about which there is a great deal of concern among Labour Members because we did not get a clear answer. As to timing in the House, this is an important Bill that we have not yet seen. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) said that the 1965 Act was rushed through the House. However, that Act was introduced on the Friday and not discussed until the Monday. Throughout the rest of today the Opposition will have to meet to discuss a Bill that they have not yet seen, and those discussions will include important matters such as the role of the Governor and the question of elections. The House does not see the need for hurry, but for reasons that have not been explained the Government take a different view.
Despite all these problems, we are expected tomorrow to discuss all the matters that have been discussed at the conference. There will be discussions on the date of the elections and the role of the Governor. Amendments will be tabled relating to sanctions. Being the sort of chap that he is, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will table amendments that match what he has said 425 today. It looks as though we shall proceed throughout tomorrow and into Friday and beyond. That is no way in which to present an important constitutional Bill to the House.
The Lord Privy Seal suggested that the House should forget party divisions and concern itself with important issues that face the country. This has been done in the past in relation to Irish matters and the like. If during the course of tomorrow the Leader of the House finds that there is no unnecessary fractious delay, will he consider postponing later stages of the Bill until the beginning of next week? It is not the wish of the Labour Opposition to play any party game, but we want to consider all these issues seriously.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive approach to the problem. Of course, as Leader of the House I must balance the convenience of the House against the advice that I receive from my right hon. Friends who are responsible for these matters and the assurances that they give me that they must be in a position to give effect to a settlement at any time. I must attach the utmost importance and weight to the judgment of those who, after all, have been engaged in these negotiations for nine weeks.

§ Mr. Buchan
The Lord Privy Seal did not tell us; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
I am telling the hon. Gentleman.
With regard to the constitutional aspects, I should stress that this is an enabling Bill. The constitutional Bill as such is not before us. The legislation merely creates a situation in which that Bill can be brought forward. Of course, I shall consider any representations that the Opposition may make about these matters, but I hope that we can all advance in a reasonable way because every hon. Member wants a settlement. The prize of a peaceful settlement in Africa is so great that every hon. Member should be prepared to exercise restraint to bring it about.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I remind the House that today is a Supply day. We 426 have yet to deal with a Ten-Minute Bill, which could well be opposed, and on Monday I received a request from the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Homewood) for an emergency debate on the closure of the Corby steelworks. If questions on the Business Statement continue for too long, we shall be very unfair to hon. Members with steel interests who are anxious to have this matter discussed today.

§ Mr. Skeet
Will my right hon. Friend clarify one matter? I understand that the Government want the Bill to go through all its stages before the weekend. If the debate spills over into Friday and demolishes Private Members' business, will my right hon. Friend make provision next week so that a very good Bill—the Youth and Community Bill—gets its Second Reading?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
I very much hope that this short Bill will be disposed of in time to allow Private Members' Bills to proceed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not a chance."] I cannot give an undertaking in respect of any particular Bill, nor can I make any judgment upon it. However, I am well aware of the importance of Private Members' Bills. Of course, if tomorrow's debate continued for that period and Private Members' time was lost, I would see that it was reinstated next week.

§ Mr. English
The press forecast this Bill over a week ago. One understands that it got the idea from the private Foreign Office briefings. If that is the case, why did not the right hon. Gentleman introduce it earlier? Will he ask the Lord Privy Seal to make another statement in a few moments' time when the Bill has been introduced? Up to now, cowardice has not been a feature of the Government, and it would be reprehensible if they hid behind a technicality and refused to answer questions on the text of a Bill that we have not yet been allowed to see.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
The question of timing is not for me. But clearly I must be guided with regard to timing. Whether the Bill is introduced earlier or later must depend on the advice of those engaged in the negotiations. Within a few minutes we shall have a full opportunity to look at the Bill, and we shall have a full opportunity to debate it tomorrow.

§ Mr. Ian Lloyd
In considering these matters, may I remind my right hon. Friend of what St. Paul said about the welcome that should be extended to late Christians? Before giving excessive weight to requests for delay, will he consider carefully the fact that in Rhodesia 1,000 people have died in the last eight weeks and that every hour of delay probably involves another death? Those who ask for unnecessary delay will have blood on their hands.

Mr. St. John Stevas
I think that every hon. Member is anxious to fulfil his responsibilities in a manner that will not cause any greater danger to the people in Rhodesia.

§ Mr. Jay
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I asked the Lord Privy Seal only 10 days ago whether there would be a need for legislation he made no mention of a hurried Bill of this kind? Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government discovered the need for hurry and why they changed their mind?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
This situation has to be kept under continuous review according to developments at the conference. The conference has made very good progress, and we believe it to be essential that the powers should exist so that swift action may be taken when the need arises.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
Will my right hon. Friend look into the possibility of putting the Private Members' business that is due on Friday above the line on Thursday? The result then would be that if we lost Friday's sitting unopposed Private Members' business could be called over when the House rose on Friday, it still theoretically being Thursday. In that way unopposed business would proceed with the minimum inconvenience to the House.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
I shall certainly consider that most interesting if somewhat complex suggestion. I will not commit myself beyond saying that this is definitely Wednesday.

§ Mr. Beith
Why did not the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues give him greater warning of the need which they now stress for hurried legislation? If they did not give him sufficient warning, did he 428 represent to them that it was an abuse of the procedures of the House to rush through a Bill in such a hurry? Will the right hon. Gentleman prove to us all that it is not a ploy to appease Conservative Back Benchers by having the Second Reading tomorrow and taking the remaining stages next week?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been in the closest touch with the situation, as has the entire Cabinet. However, it must be a matter for the Cabinet, advised by my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, as to when is the right moment to proceed with an enabling Bill.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If hon. Members will co-operate, I propose to call those hon. Members who wish to speak, bearing in mind that there is a long list of hon. Members who are desperately anxious to speak on the subject of steel.

§ Mr. Harry Ewing
As protector of the rights of all hon. Members, will the Leader of the House assure us that he is not acting under pressure from his noble Friend, and that he is not party to an arrangement whereby unless the Government get the Bill tomorrow the talks will not proceed?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
That is not the case at all. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not a party to any such agreement, and I had never thought of the matter until he suggested it.

§ Mr. Pavitt
May I remind the Leader of the House that all 635 hon. Members are not engaged in all of the subjects all of the time? Traditionally all parties have had separate groups to consider matters of importance such as the one that we are to consider tomorrow. Did the right hon. Gentleman give consideration in his timing to the possibility of groups of both parties being able to have their meetings in order to consider the legislation?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
Yes, of course I did. I realise that, as my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said, this is not entirely for the convenience of the House, but in an emergency situation the House has traditionally been prepared to put aside its convenience for the greater good.

§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon
Does the Business Statement of the Leader of the House mean that we can table amendments before 10 o'clock tonight and that they will be printed on the Order Paper tomorrow? In view of the acceptance by his right hon. Friend that the enabling Bill will allow Rhodesia to achieve independence before we discuss the constitution, does he agree that in the debate we can discuss all matters relating to the constitution over the next two or three years?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
It is not an independence Bill; it is an enabling Bill. An independence Bill would have to come before the House at a later stage. As to what is or is not in order, that is for Mr. Speaker and not for me. I have tabled the motion on the Order Paper precisely for the convenience of right hon. and hon. Members so that they can put down amendments before the Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman is quite right: that is on the Order Paper, and I hope that it will go through on the nod.

§ Mr. Buchan
Does the Leader of the House accept that it is not only his duty to announce business but to give a full explanation for it? His right hon. Friend has not managed to convince this side of the House at any rate that there is a need for the Bill tomorrow. Will he give us an explanation? Would it not be more for the convenience of the House to get such a Bill through by agreement next week, unless he can prove that there is sufficient urgency for that to be done tomorrow? There will be no delay in the effective legislation, and there is danger that such a move, far from helping the proceedings at Lancaster House, will hinder them.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
The hon. Gentleman has a point. There would be no discussion if there was not this difficult question of judgment to be made. The judgment that I have made is that if I am advised by those engaged in the detail of these negotiations that the powers are necessary I must follow that judgment unless a contrary case is proved.

§ Mr. Newens
The Bill raises important issues that could eventually place us in breach of our international agreements, because it may be seen as an ulti- 430 matum by one of the parties to the agreement. Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore recognise that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to discuss important issues of principle? Will there be adequate time for all hon. Members who wish to participate in the Second Reading debate to express their views? If not, is it not disgraceful to allow such an important Bill to be rushed through without affording that opportunity? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider postponing until next week at least the later stages of the Bill?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
We must see how the Bill progresses. With the concurrence of the House, it is my intention to provide adequate time for the debate on Second Reading. With regard to a debate on the various principles involved, I hope that all hon. Members will exercise a self-denying ordinance so that we do not jeopardise the progress of the conference.

§ Mr. Cryer
Is the Leader of the House aware that on 30 October Foreign and Commonwealth officials, in evidence to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, indicated that a Bill was in preparation and would be presented to the House? If that is so, surely it is not an emergency. The Bill could have been presented many days ago and hon. Members could have made a proper estimation of it. Is this not rushing the democratic procedures of the House in order to appease the Right wing of the Tory Party?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
The hon. Gentleman has made his point with his usual cogency, but I do not think that it is valid. It is surely a prudent protection to prepare a contingency Bill. That is quite different from making a decision to bring it before the House.

§ Mr. Ioan Evans
On reflection, does the Leader of the House agree that the House has been treated with contempt in the way that the Bill is being brought forward? There has been an illegal regime for 15 years. If there was an enabling Bill being prepared, why was it not announced last Thursday that it could be taken on Friday? There have been broadcasts of the intention to bring the Bill forward tomorrow, although the House was not informed until one o'clock today when notice of the statement appeared on 431 the annunciators. We should get away from the ramifications of the Bill and have some agreement in the House on this important matter. Surely, therefore, we should delay the Bill until Monday.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
There cannot be a contempt of this House because one day's notice is what is required; indeed, there are occasions when no notice is required. In "Erskine May" there are at least six examples to that effect.

§ Mr. Merlyn Rees
It is not clear what the Leader of the House was saying about amendments to the Bill. Can amendments be put down any time before 10 o'clock tonight or before Second Reading tomorrow? As the debate develops, there may be a need to table manuscript amendments. What will be the procedure then?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
Provided that the motion is passed, it will be possible to table amendments straight away. The question of manuscript amendments is for Mr. Speaker and not for me.

§ Mr. Merlyn Rees
What is the deadline? I understand that we shall be able to table amendments, but will we be able to do so until two o'clock tomorrow, half-past two, or four o'clock?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
Amendments may be tabled until Second Reading. It is for Mr. Speaker to decide whether he will extend facilities further and accept manuscript amendments. I hope that that is right.

§ Mr. Newens
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the guidelines for the debate will be a matter for you. He said that he hopes that hon. Members will exercise some restraint in discussing the important principles that are involved. Will you clarify the position, Mr. Speaker, and make it clear that you will be prepared to accept contributions to the debate that deal with the important principles that many of us feel are raised by the introduction of the Bill? If we are allowed to discuss the Bill in only the narrowest terms many of us will feel that it is a travesty of the business of the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
There is no point in anticipating tomorrow's debate.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. There is no need for hon. Members to get excited. I am making a simple enough statement. I shall select the amendments, and I shall bear in mind the time factor that has concerned the House. That means that I shall remember that hon. Members have not had much time to submit their amendments. Those remarks apply to the Bill's consideration on Report. Its passage through Committee is not my responsibility but that of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

§ Mr. Newens
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I endeavoured to ascertain from you whether you will be prepared to allow the debate to range over the issues of principle. Important issues of principle are involved in the submission of the Bill. It will be a travesty of the proceedings of the House if the debate is so narrowly drawn that we cannot discuss matters that many of us feel are of extreme importance.

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall make a statement at the beginning of the debate tomorrow on the content of the debate.