BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 6 August 1980)

§ Mr. Speaker
Statement—the Leader of the House.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I always take points of order after statements.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It would be unwise to change procedure when we are accustomed to points of order being taken after statements. [Interruption.] Order. I have no doubt that there will be points of order after this statement.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am requesting hon. Gentlemen to wait until after the statement. I shall then take points of order. [Interruption.] Order. I have asked hon. Members to wait until after the statement before raising points of order.

§ Mr. Millan
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am a little surprised at the right hon. Gentleman. I requested him to wait until after the statement before raising a point of order. Many right hon. and hon. Members have had to wait until after statements to raise points of order. Therefore, I do not see why I should treat one hon. Member differently from another.

Mr. Milan
I am asking—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] Noise does not influence me. After my request to the House, it is common courtesy—[Interruption.] Order. I shall call the right hon. Gentleman immediately after the statement. It is common courtesy that my request should be harkened.

Mr. Milan
With respect, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. As always, I shall take points of order after the statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Order. There is no need for such excitement at this stage. Points of order can be taken immediately after the statement.

§ Mr. Millan
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. 523 [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. I hav asked the right hon. Gentleman to resume his seat, and I hope—[Interruption.] Order. Our procedures will be spoilt if we do not follow the general custom. [Interruption.] Order. I have called upon the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to make a statement, and according to Our—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. Hon. Members cannot stop another hon. Member from speaking simply by shouting "No". That is not the procedure in this House.

§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas)
I announced today's business—

§ Mr. Millan
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have called the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to make a statement, and I intend that to be the process.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
I announced today's business yesterday—[Interruption]—but as there was a certain amount of noise at the time not all hon. Members may have heard what I said. It may be for the convenience of the House if I make a fuller statement now.
The business for today is as follows:
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Housing Bill, to the Tenants' Rights etc. (Scotland) Bill and to the Health Services Bill.
Motions on the horticulture and agriculture grant orders, and on the Capital Grant (Variation) Orders.
Motion on Commission documents on fisheries.
Motions on the British Aerospace (Borrowing Powers) (Increase of Limit) Order and on the Financial Limits National Enterprise Board and the Secretary of State) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
The Business for Thursday will be as announced last week, namely:
Debate on procedure.
Motion on financial assistance to Opposition parties.
524 On Friday 8 August, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Summer Adjournment until Monday 27 October.
Consideration of any Lords messages which may be received.

§ Mr. Foot
First, the business that the right hon. Gentleman has announced for today, particularly in the light of events in the House over the last 24 hours, is an absurdity and an outrage to the House. It is quite impossible for business of this nature to be pushed through on the basis that the Government previously proposed. That is why we urged the right hon. Gentleman to take account of what we said last night. It would have been better if he had waited; then he would have been able to make his statement to the House on a better basis.
If any hon. Member looks through the business on the Order Paper today he will see that it is impossible for the Government to force through that business on the basis on which the Government have presented it. If the Government were to attempt to push it through on that basis it would be an outrage to the proceedings of the House of Commons. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government understand that that is the Opposition's view on the matter.
I understand also that there have been discussions in order to try to secure changes on the proposals that have been made to the House on the Housing Bill. There would also be some connected implications for the Scottish legislation, which it is also proposed to discuss. Therefore, I hope that a statement will be made, presumably by the Secretary of State for the Environment, either now or a little later in the proceedings. That will also give some time for the discussion.
We are proposing a method by which the Government may be enabled to escape from the situation that they have created. Many hon. Members were not present on Monday night, but the Government were warned of all the difficulties then—before we started these discussions. If the Government had been prepared to take account of our warnings on Monday, many of these difficulties could have been avoided. I hope that the Leader of the House will be prepared to look afresh at the extent of the business 525 that he has proposed for today and to try to postpone some of that business until tomorrow. That would be the sensible course to take.
In the meantime, I hope that the Government and the Secretary of State for the Environment will be prepared, after further discussions if they wish, to make a statement that will enable us to proceed with some of that business. On the basis on which the Government have so far proceeded, it would be intolerable for the dignity and proper conduct of the House of Commons for this business to proceed.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
The heavy business programme today has been created by the direct action of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Opposition were perfectly entitled, as they did—and I have never questioned this—to use parliamentary procedures to extend the debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill so that it went into the next day's business.

§ Mr. Cryer
What about what happened in 1977?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
Yes, it has been done before. I am not saying that there is not a right to do that. I accept that there is a right to do that. But the right hon. Gentleman must accept the natural consequences of his actions. If the Opposition choose to use those procedures they will end up with an overcrowded timetable, which is not desirable in the interests of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has had his say and I have had my say. [AN HON. MEMBER:] "Sit down."] No; I have one other point to make.
I turn to the second point made by the right hon. Gentleman. It is vital that, apart from the Government and the Opposition exercising their legitimate rights, which I accept absolutely, we should proceed with these matters in accordance with the dignity and traditions of the House. If there is a possibility of some accommodation being reached on these matters, through the usual channels—an accommodation that will satisfy the parties involved and will be in accordance with the dignity of the House—I shall certainly support it.

§ Mr. Foot
I certainly hope that the House will be able to proceed. I still 526 think, and I believe that anyone who looks at the matter objectively will see, that the full programme proposed by the Government for transaction today is intolerable. Anyone who looks at it in the light of the proper conduct of the House of Commons, to which the right hon. Gentleman appealed, will see that it is impossible for the House to carry through all that business. Some of that business could, without any disturbance or addition to the Government's difficulties, be postponed until tomorrow. I have no doubt that we can have discussions about that and reach a perfectly reasonable result. But it would mean that the amount of business today would have to be curtailed from what is proposed.
I think that much the best course would be to let the discussions proceed. The right hon. Gentleman knows that discussions will be proceeding. I hope, at least, that they will be proceeding, and that a statement will be made at a very early date. Of course, we shall have to judge whether we think that statement is satisfactory. Such a statement will be the natural consequence of the action that was taken by the House of Commons. That statement was not offered to us before. We think that it will be offered now. We hope that it will be offered in proper terms. If so, I believe that it will assist the House of Commons to do its business.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those helpful contributions. I entirely agree that an agreement that respects the rights of the Government and the Opposition—I fully accept that the Opposition have rights in the House—is desirable. Such a statement will be in accordance with the dignity of the House and with the maxim, which I think is respected by the right hon. Gentleman, that the Government are entitled to get their business through the House.

§ Mr. Skinner
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. David Steel
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask a supplementary question—

§ Mr. English
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you confirm that in the last few moments the Leader of the House has made two incorrect statements? First, 527 he said that the proposed business for Friday was the Adjournment of the House. I thought that that had been decided by the House, and was no longer a proposal.
Secondly, is it not correct that there is a Standing Order of the House that prohibits the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill being taken on the same day as the Committee and remaining stages? Is it not correct that the extension that permitted yesterday's events was a Government motion to adjust that Standing Order for reasons which, frankly, I do not understand?

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We have heard the statements from both Front Benches. Briefly, in reply to the hon. Gentleman's first point of order, there will be the customary motion on the Order Paper on Friday "That the House, at its rising this day", and so on. There must be a motion for the Adjournment.
Secondly, I hope that we are not going back over what happened yesterday.

§ Mr. Skinner
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what the Leader of the House said and the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) in response to some kind of mumbo-jumbo that has been taking place, would it not be in accordance with the decorum and dignity of the House, which has so often been trundled out by the Leader of the House, for you to suspend the sitting so that those of us who want to know what is taking place between the various spokesmen may know precisely what is likely to take place when the sitting resumes?

§ Mr. David Steel
I should like to ask the Leader of the House two questions on the business. First, what has happened to the fisheries statement? Because of what happened during Scottish questions, I think that we are entitled to ask this question. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the Secretary of State for Scotland implied that there was to have been a statement on fisheries yesterday? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that no such notice was given to Opposition parties in the normal 528 Will he come clean on what happened? When are we to get the statement?
Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman is a believer in a bicameral legislature, if the discussions between the usual channels involve some acceptance of the policy changes and improvements made in the other place to the Housing Bill, does he not think it unwise to proceed further with the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Bill and to leave it unimproved if some improvements to the Housing Bill are accepted?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
In the statement that I have just made there is provision for a debate on fisheries. In this situation that may be the most convenient position for any statement to be made. I shall certainly look into that.
As for giving undertakings about the making of a statement, as the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, the situation is somewhat fluid. I cannot give an undertaking that a statement will be made at any particular time, but I certainly take on board what the right hon. Gentleman said.
On the Housing Bill, it is vital that Scotland and England should be treated equally in these matters. Therefore, it is right that the interests of Scotland should be taken into account on an equal basis with the interests of England.

§ Mr. Robert Hughes
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be within your recollection, if not that of the Leader of the House, that there was some controversy during Scottish questions about whether a statement on aid to the fishing industry had or had not been made yesterday. In response to questions, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that any reports in today's press about money for the industry were purely speculative and that no statement had been made. In the Aberdeen Evening Express of last night which I received this morning, there was not only a full statement on the amount of money that was to be made available to the industry but comments by members of the fishing industry on what the response to that sum should be.

§ Mr. Dewar
Leaks.

§ Mr. Hughes
In the stop press of the Aberdeen Evening Express there were a couple of lines—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The issue might be important, but whether it is a point of order is another matter. Will the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) inform me of that on which he wants me to rule? That is the only issue with which I can deal.

§ Mr. Hughes
I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for taking so long to lead up to the matter. Unless I explain the background—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must submit his point of order, otherwise we shall have to move on.

§ Mr. Hughes
If I merely put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the procedures of the House and the rights of Back Benchers are being abused, you might be tempted to rule that that is not a matter for you. It is in order to put the point of order to you properly, Mr. Speaker, that I am trying to explain how the matter arose.

§ Mr. Speaker
I can deal only with straight points of order when the rules of the House are in danger. If the hon. Gentleman will come to that point, I will hear him out, but he must come to it.

§ Mr. Hughes
I was about to utter my last sentence on this issue, Mr. Speaker. I was about to say that the Aberdeen Evening Express, in its stop press, carried two short lines that told readers that the statement had been withdrawn. Surely you can rule, Mr. Speaker, following a point of order, that a Secretary of State cannot say to the House that no statement has been issued and that reports are purely speculative when clearly statements have been issued. It is unfair and an abuse of the procedures of the House that statements should be withdrawn in the certain knowledge that questions were on the Order Paper—namely, in Scottish questions—dealing with the fishing industry in Scotland.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have heard sufficient to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not responsible for the content of Ministers' replies.

§ Mr. Cryer
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I hope that I shall be asked to rule on genuine points of order.

§ Mr. Cryer
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Skinner
You have not answered my other one, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have ruled that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North did not have a point of order on which I could rule.

§ Mr. Skinner
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman did not have a point of order on which I could rule. The content of Ministers' replies, whether they make statements, and the relationships of statements to that which appears in the press, are not matters that come within my responsiblity.

§ Mr. Cryer
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House has made a Business Statement and has suggested that negotiations will proceed through the usual channels. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you adjourned the House because you thought at the time that that was the best solution. May I suggest that that is a possible solution that you should consider now?
If the Leader of the House persists with his Business Statement while negotiations are taking place, in effect the Opposition's position is being pre-empted as the business is progressing. If the right hon. Gentleman is serious when he says that there should be some compromise in conformity with the dignity of the House. It is only fair, bearing in mind all the differing points of view in the House, including those of the Government but especially those of the Opposition, that the House should adjourn, in view of the difficult background. The matter is entirely in your hands, Mr. Speaker, and I ask you to adjourn the House for 20 minutes or half an hour.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have no intention of adjourning the House.

§ Mr. Beith
rose—

§ Mr. Millan
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have had written notice of a point of order from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). However. I shall 531 take first the point of order of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan).

Mr. Milan
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I welcome what the Leader of the House has said about treating Scotland and England on all fours when proceeding with the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill. However, the right hon. Gentleman will know that there are considerable technical difficulties, given the stage that we have reached with the Bill. May I have an assurance, in line with the promise that he has made, that further consideration of the Bill will not take place today and that it will be deferred if it is not possible to treat Scotland and England on all fours?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
I cannot give an undertaking in those terms. If an agreement in principle is reached that Scotland and England should be treated equally in this matter, how that is done becomes a matter of technicalities. If there is the agreement in principle, the technicalities question is secondary.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that I am right in saying that you are responsible for the Votes and Proceedings that we receive each day. The Leader of the House made a statement in which, inadvertently, he made a false statement. He said that he made a statement yesterday. He did not. Those who were present yesterday will know that at 2.32 pm the Government moved, That this House do now adjourn. That proposal was carried with acclamation. No one shouted "No". Although I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means is going to suggest that he did not put the Question, the fact is that the House adjourned at 2.32 because there was no voice heard against the Government's proposal.
On reading the Votes and Proceedings and the press—the information has been given conveniently to the press—I find that the House adjourned at nine minutes to 3 o'clock. Nineteen minutes elapsed between 2.32 and nine minutes to 3 o'clock. I have never known—I have not been here very long but I have been here long enough—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I have never known an occupant of the Chair to wait 19 minutes to put 532 the Question when there has not been any opposition.
You came into the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, without knowledge of that which had taken place previously. Of course I know that the Chair is never wrong. I know that the Chair cannot be wrong. I do not suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you were wrong. However, you did not know what had happened. You came into the Chamber after 2.32, Mr. Speaker, and you took the chair. You called the Leader of the House and his shadow, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) —I am not sure in which order they were called—but, with respect, the House was not sitting.
You were not in the Chair, Mr. Speaker. You could not call the Leader of the House or my right hon. Friend because the Question had been put and agreed to. I know that it is convenient that the Government give the time that the House rises to the press and I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are not responsible for that. However, it is carried in the press today that the House adjourned at nine minutes to 3 o'clock. It is wrong to put that in the Votes and Proceedings, because anyone with ears, who was there at the time, knows that we adjourned at 2.32 pm.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is one of the most senior hon. Members. He has been here for a very long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] He follows the ordinary courtesies. He gave me notice this morning that he would seek to draw my attention to the point that he has raised.
The sequence of events is not quite as the hon. Gentleman described them. As soon as the Government Whip had moved the Adjournment of the House the Deputy Speaker proposed the Question in the usual manner. However, he did not take the voices. The fact that some hon. Members may have shouted "Aye" does not mean that the House was adjourned.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is not a great issue. I am being polite to the hon. Gentleman. The House was not adjourned until I adjourned it.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Beith
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A matter arises from the Scottish fisheries question, upon which I hope you can help the House. Ministers and other Conservative Members have given the impression that there was an intention to make a statement yesterday about fisheries, and that the making of that statement was prevented by the action of the Opposition parties. It would help us, Mr. Speaker, if you would confirm the firm impression that I have, namely, that no such notice was given, either to you or to your office. Will you also confirm that neither a Minister nor the Leader of the House took any of the usual steps to inform you that a statement was to be made? From my knowledge of the situation, I believe that no such steps were taken. However, it would help, Mr. Speaker, if you made clear to hon. Members and to those outside that, rightly or wrongly, there was no specific intention to make a fisheries statement yesterday and that such a statement was not prevented by the events that followed.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Kinnock
I do not wish to be critical, but I wondered, Mr. Speaker, whether we might still ask the Leader of the House supplementary questions.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It would be more orderly if hon. Members were to stop raising points of order and we were to return to questions on the Business Statement, which I am prepared to allow for a while.

§ Mr. Kinnock
rose—

§ Mr. Beith
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I realise that I have not answered the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Normally I am informed of statements. I do not think that any hon. Member would wish to involve me in the argument that is going on between the two sides of the House. I should much prefer to be out of it.

§ Mr. Beith
Perhaps the Leader of the House will absolve you, Mr. Speaker, from any such unpleasant obligation by 534 indicating clearly whether he or any other Minister gave you notice of an intention to make a statement on fisheries.

§ Mr. Kinnock
Did any Minister give the Leader of the House any information yesterday that might have led him to believe that a statement would be made on education, or on fisheries? Why is there is no provision in the Business Statement for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to make a statement on two matters of pressing importance, namely, the Government's response to the arbitration award for teachers and their continued prevarication on the important subject of a salary settlement for university teachers?
Yesterday, it seemed that the Secretary of State was anxious to make a statement. Since he is not taking the opportunity to make a statement today, are we to believe that that anxiety has evaporated? Perhaps the Leader of the House will inform me that I am wrong, and that he is going to make a statement later. In the absence of any statements, will we have to rely, as we did last week in terms of the abolition of the Clegg Commission, on planted written questions in order to ensure that important Government statements and policy announcements are made?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the desirability of reaching some reasonable accord. In the limited time available, unless some accord is reached it will be extremely difficult to fit in the various statements. If a reasonable agreement can be reached I shall do my best to ensure that statements are made on these important issues—which I do not distinguish between—namely, fisheries and education.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I Order. I hope that hon. Members will not continue to raise points of order. I know that some hon. Members wish to ask questions about the Business Statement, and I propose to allow that for a little while. However, I have had notice of 13 applications under Standing Order No. 9. I shall make a statement about them.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Barry Jones
I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) ask the Leader of the House a 535 question. May we ask the Leader of the House whether, his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is obviously asking a business question. He has not raised a point of order, or a matter on which I can rule. Hon. Members know that they cannot address a question to a Minister by rising and saying "On a point of order". Hon. Members must be more orderly than that.

§ Mr. Straw
Will the Leader of the House reply to the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)? They asked whether any Minister had given notice yesterday that he wished to make a statement on education, fisheries or any other issue. Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that the cause of the present chaos in relation to the business of the House is the Government's desire to force through the Housing Bill and to trample on the wishes of the House of Lords—which the right hon. Gentleman holds dear even if we do not. There is no particular reason why the Bill should be enacted this side of the summer recess, apart from the Secretary of State's desire to upstage the Prime Minister at the Conservative Party conference.
Will the Leader of the House spell out—because it has never been spelled out—the compelling reasons for enacting the Bill, and who would be at risk if it were not enacted before the Summer Recess? Why did the right hon. Gentleman say on 24 July that it was no bad thing for the House of Lords to amend the Housing Bill in five respects? The Government immediately tabled amendments rejecting each Lords amendment.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
I have no recollection of applications being made for statements. There is a simple reason for putting the Housing Bill on the statute book at the earliest possible moment. It will mean that tenants will have the right—as quickly as possible—to buy their own houses. Although the Opposition may have scored the occasional procedural point during this debate, the right for people to buy their own homes 536 is at stake. It is that that the Opposition are delaying. With reference to the upstaging, I do not know whom my right hon. Friend may or may not upstage, as long as he does not upstage me.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I propose to allow business to questions run until 4.15 pm.

§ Mr. Kilfedder
Will we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland before the House rises on Friday about the proposed public expenditure cuts of £92 million and the grave unemployment that exists in the Province because of the Government's action?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
I cannot promise that. I know that the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) had the opportunity to raise the vital question of the future of the Province in the debate on the Adjournment motion for Summer Recess.

§ Mr. Hardy
May I refer the Leader of the House to the agriculture motions on the Order Paper? Is he aware that there is a great deal of criticism about them—perhaps not in the House but certainly in the country—and that all conservation organisations and the National Farmers Union are extremely critical of them? At what time does he expect us to consider the motions? He has referred to the rights of the Opposition and the Government in this House but does he recognise that sensible and responsible organisations throughout the country are entitled to expect us to consider matters of this kind seriously and at a reasonable hour? They do not expect the Government to get the motions through at the tail end of parliamentary exhaustion. Will he discuss through the usual channels the desirability of their being deferred for consideration until after the Summer Recess?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
There are four motions involved, and it is the intention that they should be taken two at a time. That will involve a debate of one and a half hours each. It is quite normal for motions of this kind to be taken after the end of the main business.

§ Mr. Grimond
Is it not obvious that the business of the House is in chaos 537 because the Government have attempted to cram far too much business through the House, even in this extended Session? We know that there are many statements that the Government wish to make, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will apologise for saying that he was prevented from making a statement when obviously he was not prevented at all. We understand that these matters are to be considered, but it is not only the Opposition but Back Benchers who have rights in this House. There are many Back Benchers who wish to say something. We understand that there will be discussions. Can the Leader of the House tell us when he expects the discussions to finish and when he will come to the House again to make a further statement to enable us to treat the business of the House with the dignity about which everyone is so keen?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
I do not think that we are in a state of chaos. The Opposition may be in a state of chaos, but that is another matter. There appears to be a little local difficulty and I hope that it can be resolved by reasonable conversations through the usual channels. If it is possible, I always prefer to settle these strongly felt disputes on a rational basis. I am well aware of the rights of Bank Benchers. The Leader of the House has a duty to get Government business through—everyone accepts that—but throughout this year I have done my best to ensure that Back Benchers enjoy their full rights.

§ Mr. Fitt
Is the Leader of the House aware that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has today used a planted question to make a statement of major financial importance to Northern Ireland, indicating a transfer of resources from education, health and social services, and a cutback in public expenditure in the Province? Will he indicate to the Secretary of State that before the Summer Recess he should make a statement in the House so that he can be subjected to question and answer and so that the people of Northern Ireland will know that he must not use this type of procedure to put forward his points of view?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
Written questions are an accepted procedure of the House. It is not as if they were a way of undermining our procedures. There are recognised 538 uses for the written answer procedure. We use it when it is not possible to fit in an oral statement. Throughout this year I have sought to accommodate hon. Members and Ministers with as many oral statements as possible.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
Will my right hon. Friend agree that the cat has been let out of the bag by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and that the crucial point is that the Housing Bill should reach the statute book as soon as possible? In that way Labour and Conservative supporters in all constituencies will have the same opportunity of owning their own homes as that shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
I quite agree. I repeat that behind all the procedural manoeuvrings is the question of the right of council house tenants to buy their own homes.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Before 12 o'clock this morning—

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am making a statement.
Before 12 o'clock this morning, I received notice of 13 applications under Standing Order No. 9. I believe that we are getting very close to an abuse of the Standing Order. I propose to ask hon. Members to confine their applications strictly to explaining why the matter that they wish to raise is urgent, specific and important. I believe that hon. Members should be able to do that within the space of three minutes each, and I hope that they will co-operate with me accordingly.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am now dealing with applications under Standing Order No. 9—[Interruption.] Order. I have just said that I am dealing with applications under Standing Order No. 9. I am not taking points of order at this stage.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before you—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member is always very helpful and I know that he wants to be helpful now, but he 539 must realise that I must now move to applications under Standing Order No. 9. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] That is what I intend to do.

§ Mr. Lewis
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I am not taking points of order now.

§ Mr. Lewis
Then you will have to remove me, Mr. Speaker. You will have to suspend me, because I wish to raise a genuine point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has a legitimate point of order; he always has. However, I have asked him to allow me to move on because I do not intend to take further points of order at this stage.

§ Mr. Lewis
I am not raising a point of order, I am asking a question.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking a question?

§ Mr. William Hamilton
You cannot do that.

§ Mr. Speaker
I can do it, and I am going to do it. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) wishes to ask me a question.

§ Mr. Lewis
I am much obliged Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask a legitimate question about procedure. It is not a point of order because you will not take a point of order. There have been discussions through the usual channels and these are continuing. How can we Back Benchers ask you whether you will agree to a manuscript amendment? We have not had the chance to see the Notice Paper. We have not had the chance to discuss anything at all. How can Back Benchers exercise their democratic rights if the Leader of the House will not hear us and you, Mr. Speaker, will not take points of order and we are not allowed to make suggestions?
Will you accept manuscript amendments, Mr. Speaker? If not, I shall walk out. I shall ask you to suspend me because there is no point in my being here if I am not allowed my democratic rights. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I ask you in a sincere manner because I think it is right—[Interruption.] If you want me to be suspended, then you will have to do it.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member knows that the last thing that I want to do is to suspend him.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The House requires its Speaker to exercise discretion. I have to hear 13 applications under Standing Order No. 9. It is not unreasonable to move on to them.

§ Mr. Lewis
Will you answer my question?

Hon. Members
We want to ask questions, too.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Lewis
Will you accept manuscript amendments?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Lewis
Will you accept them?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. In view of the noise, I shall suspend the Sitting for 10 minutes.

§ Mr. Speaker
resumed the Chair.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have often said that a brief adjournment is useful. This adjournment was useful for me because it reminded me that I had told the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) that I take points of order after statements.

§ Mr. Foot
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you have given an undertaking to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craig-ton (Mr. Millan) that you will take his point of order. We shall come to that later. In the light of the difficulties that we have encountered, I suggest that the past 10 minutes were not sufficient to deal with the matter. One or two of my hon. Friends suggested that the House should be suspended while the matter was considered. You have already suspended the House for a few minutes, and I realise that that is not a normal occurrence. I am not suggesting that suspending the House is a normal procedure in any sense. But I believe that if you, Mr. Speaker, 541 are willing to suspend the House for half an hour, that might provide the best opportunity to obtain a proper means by which the House can proceed in an orderly manner. We have already had one suspension, and if we do not follow my suggestion we may find ourselves in further difficulty. I suggest that the House should be suspended until 5 pm or 5.15 pm. By that means we should be able to find a method by which we could proceed. I think that the House will find that that is the most reasonable way to move forward. It would be fair to Back Bench Members who have a paramount interest in the matter.

§ Mr. Millan
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you have heard my point of order you may understand why I was anxious to raise it earlier. I was told by the Secretary of State for Scotland's office today that, although he could not make a normal statement about the colleges of education in Scotland, he intended to answer a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). Have you received any indication or request from the Secretary of State that he wished to make a statement on that important matter at the end of Question Time? If not, and if he now makes such a request—and I hope that he will—will he be allowed to make that important statement at the end of the business that we are presently discussing?

§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My office contacted the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) this morning and offered to request that question No. 23 should be answered at the end of Question Time. That offer was turned down flat, and I did no more about it.

§ Mr. Millan
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot allow that remark to pass without comment. If the Secretary of State wishes to contact me in future, perhaps he will arrange to do so at the appropriate level. I made it clear to his office that I wanted him to make an oral statement today. He still has an opportunity to make one, and I hope that he will do so now.

§ Mr. Foulkes
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Leader of the House aware that as recently—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is a question of whether I am aware of whatever point the hon. Gentleman is making.

§ Mr. Foulkes
Is it in order for the Scottish Information Office, as recently as this morning, to reply to inquiries from the press by saying that a statement would be made by the Secretary of State this afternoon about the colleges of education in Scotland, and then for no statement to be made?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not within my domain.

§ Mr. Foot
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are losing further time. We are discussing a matter about which considerable feelings have been raised in all parts of the House. If we are to find a reasonable way to proceed, and because we have lost a little more time, I suggest that the House be suspended until 5.30 pm. I am seeking to secure a position in which the House may sensibly proceed with its business. It would greatly assist the possibility of reaching a sensible agreement, which I believe is available, if the House were suspended. I hope that the Leader of the House will support my proposition.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I have already said, I agree with the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) that it is desirable to reach a reasonable agreement on these matters. Since you, Mr. Speaker, have said that there are 13 applications under Standing Order No. 9, would it not be reasonable to proceed with a discussion on those, while other discussions take place?

§ Mr. Speaker
It appears that I may now call applications under Standing Order No. 9, which will take a considerable time. Those concerned in other discussions may thereupon be involved in them.

§ Mr. Foot
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit my suggestion to you once again. I understand the desire of the House to proceed. I understand the difficulties. I understand 543 your reticence in wishing to refrain, if possible, from suspending the proceedings of the House. I understand that that is not a normal procedure. However, I seriously suggest that if we are to deal with the matter in a sensible manner my proposal is the most likely way to achieve that. I do not believe that a series of applications under Standing Order No. 9 is the best way to proceed.
There is another difficulty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Craigton wishes to make an application under Standing Order No. 9 on another matter. He has a right to do so. We have given notice on that matter previously. However, he is also concerned in the discussions on another matter. I earnestly suggest that the best way for the House to proceed would be to suspend until 5.30 p.m. I ask you to consider that proposition.

§ Mr. Kilfedder
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 18 July, when the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, placed the appropriation accounts for Northern Ireland before the House, he gave an assurance that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would make a statement about public expenditure cuts amounting to about £92 million. On that occasion I described the appropriation order as a fiction because we were asked to approve something that the Government were abandoning. The Secretary of State should have made a statement. I asked the Leader of the House earlier whether he would make a statement, but he said that there was no need to do so. I subsequently discovered that the Secretary of State had made a statement about the public expenditure cuts attached to an answer—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is not a point of order. It is not my responsibility if a statement has not been made. I can rule only on matters that fall within my responsibility.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), he made a suggestion which might suit the two Front Benches but I am more concerned with the Back Benchers, who will not be involved in any discussions. Eventually, we shall have to come to a guillotine motion. However 544 we were to have had five and a half hours, I think, to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 116. At the present rate, it looks as though it will be 9 p.m. before we even reach them. Unless Back Benchers have the chance to move manuscript amendments to the proposed guillotine motion, we shall have no time at all to discuss any of these amendments. This is a very important matter.
Therefore, if you, Mr. Speaker, cannot agree to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale for an adjournment, may I ask the Leader of the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, to accept an adjournment so that we can get together to discuss this matter? I suggest that we are entitled to have the five and a half hours for the first group of amendments—the Government's proposal—one and a half hours for the second group of amendments, and another one and a half hours for the next group, irrespective of when we start. Unless we are given that time, we shall not be able to put up sufficient arguments.

§ Mr. Speaker
If the hon. Gentleman submits a manuscript amendment, I shall give it the utmost consideration; but I say that without giving any guarantee at this stage, because no Speaker could be expected to give one.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I think that the will of the House is that we should move on. [Interruption.] Order. It is quite clear that there is unanimity.

§ Mr. Cryer
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will see from the Order Paper that my name is at the head of those of a group of hon. Members who have put a block on the Eastbourne Harbour Bill. Two of those hon. Members, myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) have written to the promoters, at their offer to discuss the matter of the Bill. We would not wish in any way to prejudge a meeting. The fact that the Bill is on the Order Paper and has been announced by the Leader of the House as being taken preempts the rights of Back Benchers to be able to discuss private business in the traditional way of the House of Commons.
545 Therefore, it seems to me that this is a factor which ought to enter into the views of the Leader of the House when the discussions are taking place through the usual channels. This is an entirely new factor which no one has mentioned so far, and it seems to me that the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) should he allowed to proceed—that is, that the sitting should be suspended for three-quarters of an hour so that the rights of six Back Benchers, at least, can be taken into account in adjusting the business.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The Chairman of Ways and Means gave notice that the private business was to proceed at 7 o'clock this evening. Notice had been given to the House in advance.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
Perhaps it would go some way to meet the point made by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot)—although, Mr. Speaker, it is entirely within your discretion and it is your decision—if, in order to facilitate the discussions, we adjourned for a half an hour.

§ Mr. Speaker
The sitting is suspended until 5.15 pm.

§ Mr. Speaker
resumed the Chair.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
With permission, Mr. Speaker, following discussions through the usual channels I would like to make a Business Statement.
The business for today will now be as follows:
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Housing Bill;
Opposed private business;
British Aerospace Borrowing Powers (Increase of Limit) and Financial Limits (National Enterprise Board and Secretary of State) Orders.
The business for tomorrow will be:
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill and the Health Services Bill;
Agriculture and horticulture Orders;
Motion on Common fisheries policy.
546 I am very happy that an amicable agreement has been reached on these matters.

§ Mr. Foot
I thank the Leader of the House for rearranging the business. I certainly think that that will greatly assist the House, because I believe, as I previously indicated, that the business for today was impossible for the House to deal with.
In the matter of the Housing Bill I suggest that the best way to proceed is for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement before we proceed to the guillotine motion. That would be the most agreeable way for the House to deal with the matter. If the Secretary of State is prepared to make a statement at that stage, I believe that the House will be able to embark upon the Housing Bill with a clear understanding of what the Government are proposing.
I hope that the proposal made by the Leader of the House and my proposal dealing with the way in which we should approach the Housing Bill will be satisfactory to the House. As a result of these discussions I hope that we shall be able to overcome some of the difficulties with which the House had to contend earlier today.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I shall pass his suggestion on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who, I understand, is amenable to the suggestion.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Perhaps hon. Members will now agree to our making progress on the Standing Order.

§ Mr. English
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I entitled to ask a question on the Business Statement?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) will realise that all this will have an effect on the House in the small hours of the morning.

§ Mr. English
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Has the Leader of the House just told us that the two Front Benches, as a result of a carve-up between them, have abolished the procedure debate, in which 547 Back Benchers on both sides of the Chamber were endeavouring to reform our procedure, with, I may say, the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the procedure debate has been postponed to the overspill period. However, it has not been postponed further than that. The procedure debate, together with the Government resolutions that have been tabled, will be taken in the first week after we return from the recess.

§ Mr. William Hamilton
Does the Leader of the House recognise that this agreement has been made without the consent or knowledge of Back-Bench Members and that they will not be bound by it?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
In the limited time available, it has not been possible to consult all Back-Bench Members on this matter. Some Back-Bench Members have been consulted. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is in the best interests of the House, both Front and Back Benches. This is not a conspiracy of the Front Benches against the rights of Back Benchers.

§ Mr. Dewar
Will the Leader of the House urge on the Secretary of State for Scotland that, in the interests of his own reputation, he should take the opportunity tomorrow to make a statement on Scottish colleges of education? Will there also be a statement on how the Government intend to put Scotland on all fours with England in housing legislation?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
I shall pass on those requests to my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon
Is the Leader of the House aware that, if the Government are prepared to be considerate regarding the legitimate aspirations of the Opposition about opposing the Housing Bill, some of us will be willing to co-operate in the agreement made between the Front Benches?
Therefore, I am willing to withdraw my application to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous gesture. 548 I hope that it will be followed by 12 other hon. Members.

§ Mr. Fitt
Mr. Speaker, may I ask you on a point of order whether this can be taken as a question to the Leader of the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It will be a lot easier if the hon. Gentleman addresses his question to the Leader of the House. He is likely to get a more intelligent reply.

§ Mr. Fitt
I should like to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to question No. 20 on 10 July by the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. BruceGardyne) relating to the De Lorean car factory in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman was given an undertaking by the Minister of State that before the Summer Recess an answer would be given to that question. That answer was given today and I have absolutely no quarrel with it. But in that answer there is a statement of Government policy on financial arrangements in Northern Ireland.
Tied in with the answer relating to De Lorean there is a statement that there is to be a £10 million cutback on education, a £10 million cutback on health and social services and £10 million to be added to what are known as protective services in Northern Ireland. Does the Leader of the House regard it as fair to the people of Northern Ireland that a statement of such magnitude should be issued in that way without Northern Ireland Members having an opportunity to question the Secretary of State on the implications? Will he, even at this eleventh hour before the recess, arrange for the Secretary of State to be given an opportunity to express his opinion on the matter in the House?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
I take seriously the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I point out that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is top for questions tomorrow, so, within the rules of order, there will no doubt be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to raise the point.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I propose to call the three hon. Members who have been rising in their places.

§ Mr. Skinner
Is the Leader of the House aware that the so-called bargain 549 which has been struck between certain Front Bench spokesmen on both sides of the House is not very good, even though it may contain the dropping of those 200,000 elderly persons' dwellings which could eventually be sold to property speculators under the terms of the Housing Bill?

§ Mr. Fitt
The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) would sell them his house.

§ Mr. Skinner
How does that bargain square with the fact that a few hours ago on the radio the Leader of the House, long before he made any statement to the House of Commons today, implied that he did not expect the Housing Bill to be on the statute book before the Tory Party conference but that it would, I think his words were, have to wait another three months? To that extent, would it not have been better if the Housing Bill had been dropped from the business today instead of having it paraded in front of the Tory Party conference in October?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
I think that what I stated was rather different from what the hon. Gentleman said.

§ Mr. Skinner
I heard it.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
No doubt the hon. Gentleman heard it, but I said it. In so far as I can recollect from one moment to another on such a day what I have said, what I said on that occasion was that I hoped that it would be available. But, whether I hoped that it would or would not, it seems now that it will be.

§ Mr. Cryer
Would it not have been better for all concerned if the private business set down for consideration after the Housing Bill had been deferred to the spillover period so that some of us could have a meeting with the promoters of the Eastbourne Harbour Bill, as has been indicated?
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member 550 for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is not adequate when savage cuts are being made in Northern Ireland expenditure without a statement and when money is being allocated to the De Lorean car company which some of us think is nothing more than a gigantic rip-off?

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
The hon. Gentleman has made his point. That matter should be pursued with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at Northern Ireland question time.
I should have no objection to the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman about the disposal of private business, but it is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means. He decides where private business should fall; and it is important that his independence be respected.

§ Mr. Craigen
Why did not the Government think fit to make a proper statement on the future of colleges of education in Scotland as they are proposing to close two of those colleges—Hamilton and Callendar Park—and have done by way of a sneaky written answer to me this afternoon after a great deal of arm-twisting of the Scottish Office to get the reply.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
It has been difficult in these circumstances to fit in all the oral statements which I should like. There has been a statement on this matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands why in the circumstances it was made in that manner.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I inform the House that there are now eight applications under Standing Order No. 9. I shall be grateful if there is any reduction in that number.

§ Mr. Straw
In view of the major concessions which have been forced out of the Government this afternoon, notwithstanding that they have a majority of 70 over Labour Members, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my application.