On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to interrupt Business Question Time now, but I want to raise a point of order about the propriety of putting down the debate on Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball when it is known that it is fully expected that on Monday leave will be sought to go to the House of Lords, and the matter will then become sub judice. If it is proper for me to raise this matter after Business Question Time, I shall do so, but I think that it involves Business Questions.
I wish to revert to the proposed debate on Tuesday about Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are concerned that representations appear to have been made to their legal advisers to the effect that Parliament is anxious to have a debate on the matter? Parliament is anxious to see justice done. We can debate the question of the men's expulsion once the legal proceedings are over. Will my right hon. Friend take that very much into account?
I certainly have taken it into account. I wish to say in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) that of course we have taken these questions into account, and if the matter is ruled to be sub judice we shall have to make different arrangements. But we have arranged the debate for next week in response to requests made by my hon. Friends.
I ask my right hon. Friend to give serious consideration to a debate on unemployment. In view of the factory closures in the North-West—on Merseyside in particular—and in other regions, does not my right hon. Friend think that a debate on unemployment is essential? If we sat on Friday of next week that would extend the time of the House by at least one day for such a debate.
Discussion of these subjects and the whole matter of employment measures will be in order in today's debate. It will be opened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who will be discussing these questions. As I have indicated to my hon. Friend and the House before, questions of major employment policy are of course proper subjects for debate durthe Budget debates. That does not exclude the possibility of later debates on special aspects of the extremely important matter my hon. Friend has raised.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the time allowed this week for the debate on three EEC documents on fisheries was totally inadequate? In view of the great concern in the fishing industry, will he arrange for a debate giving more time to consider these urgent matters?
I am sorry that I cannot promise further time to debate these matters in the business announced for next week. I am also sorry that there was not more time available this week. But, as the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will be aware, we still do not have sufficient time to discuss all these important matters of proposals from the European Community.
In view of the visit of Mr. Vance, the approach of the Belgrade Conference, and the arrest in Moscow of Anatoli Sharanski and his imprisonment in Lefurtova Prison, has not the time come when we should have a debate on human rights, with specific reference to the way in which the Soviet Union is treating its minorities in general and its Jewish minority in particular?
I fully accept the importance of the subjects raised by my hon. and learned Friend, but many of these topics were referred to in general terms, and with some specific references, by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary when he spoke in the House a week or two ago.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Early-Day Motion No. 222 in my name has now attracted the support of more than 350 hon. Members in all parts of the House, that they constitute more than half the House, and that I am informed by the Table Office that this is a record for Early-Day Motions? In those circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman now consider giving the House an opportunity before the Whitsun Recess to debate and vote upon this matter?
In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend has announced that other matters will be debated before the case of Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball on Tuesday, and in view of the fact that he stated that the debate should end at 7 p.m., will he indicate how much time will be available for dealing with this important matter? Many of us think that it will be totally unsatisfactory if adequate time is not made available so that all hon. Members who wish to contribute have an opportunity to say something. If there will not be adequate time on Tuesday, will my right hon. Friend consider having the debate on another occasion?
We have arranged this debate in response to requests from a number of my hon. Friends, and we propose that there should be two hours for the debate on Tuesday. I hope that it will be possible for my hon. Friends to put their points of view in that debate. When the matter was to have been debated on a previous occasion the amount of time allocated was slightly less than two hours. I hope that it will be a satisfactory debate.
We are still continuing with the talks that I promised after the defeat of the timetable motion. The hon. Member may rest assured that we shall proceed with the devolution measure. It is to this Government that hon. Members should look if they want to see the pledges on devolution carried into effect.
Does the Leader of the House recollect that a fortnight ago I was given a written undertaking that a statement would be made as soon as practicable about the interdepartmental committee on forestry? This morning there was a long Written Answer in reply to what was obviously a planted Question from a Labour Member. Is this an adequate implementation of the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking, and if he thinks that it is not, will he give an assurance that we shall have a statement next week?
I hoped that the reply would be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and all those who are interested in the subject. If he wishes to pursue the matter I shall see whether it can be raised again another time. There are quite a lot of opportunities available when this matter can be raised.
Order. I intend to call only three more hon. Members from either side because there is another statement and there are two applications under Standing Order No. 9 to come.
I hope that we shall have a fairly early opportunity to discuss all aspects of that report. It would be invidious for me to say at this stage which parts of the report I regard as either wise or unwise.
In replying to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler), the Leader of the House quite correctly said that the hon. Member had been successful in the Ballot, but the form his debate would take would not enable us to vote on that matter. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should listen to the debate very carefully, and if there is a great deal of support in the House they should not rule out the possibility of giving Government time so that we can have a positive vote.
I am not ruling out the possibility, but the establishment of new Select Committees requires considerable debate in this House. The establishment of a foreign affairs Select Committee might result in many foreign affairs matters being transferred from the House on a very big scale, and this is a question which must be taken into account. I shall listen to the debate without prejudice and then I shall see whether a further debate is necessary at a later stage.
The motion on tomorrow's Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) is a comprehensive motion to deal with EEC business off the Floor of the House. As it is wholly in line with the recommendations of the Procedure Committee 1974–75—a Committee that had a pro-Market majority—why has my right hon. Friend put down an amendment that falls far short of that Committee's recommendations?
That matter is for debate tomorrow as it has been for debate on previous occasions. Although this will be elaborated then, I believe that it is wrong that a Standing Committee of this kind should have the power to decide matters in the manner proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee). The responsibility of individual Committees to this House raises more important questions than either my hon. Friend or the Committee appreciated.
Did the Leader of the House observe Foreign Office Questions yesterday? When I raised the extraordinary proposition of British people having to have a Euro-passport, the Foreign Office refused to give any assurance that this would be debated before a decision was made. Ministers said that this was a matter for the Leader of the House. I am now giving the Leader of the House the opportunity to give us an assurance that we shall debate the question before any decision is taken outside this House.
Reverting to the debate about Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball, will my right hon. Friend agree that it would be most undesirable if Parliament even appeared to be putting pressure on the courts to dispose of the matter with undue haste? Will he assure me that the announcement of this debate is not intended to put pressure on either of the parties involved to go or not to go to the House of Lords?
My hon. Friend has given me the opportunity to assure him that of course the arrangements for the debate are not intended in any sense whatever to bring any pressure on those involved in the case. If we had not put the matter down for debate next week, I would have been criticised by some of my hon. Friends who had asked for a debate and to whom I had given a pledge. If the case is sub judice, the debate will have to be arranged for a later time. I promised that we would have a debate before Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball were required to leave the country, and that still stands.