HC Deb 16 April 1959 vol 603 cc1138-42
Mr. Gaitskell

May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler)

Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 20TH APRIL—Supply [10th Allotted Day]: Committee.

It is proposed to take Supply formally, and then debate the Opposition Motion, which is already on the Order Paper, relating to Retirement Pensions.

TUESDAY, 21sT APRIL—Committee and and remaining stages of the Income Tax (Repayment of Post-War Credits) Bill.

Report and Third Reading of the Wages Councils (Amendment) Bill [Lords](changed to " Terms and Conditions of Employment Bill [Lords]").

Committee stage of the Highways Bill [Lords].

Second Reading of the Post Office Works Bill [Lords] and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Consideration of the Purchase Tax (No. 1) Order relating to television sets.

WEDNESDAY, 22ND APRIL—Report and Third Reading of the Street Offences Bill.

THURSDAY, 23RD APRIL—Debate cm Welsh Affairs.

The debate will arise on a Government Motion to take note of the Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouth shire for the period 1st July, 1957, to 31st December, 1958. (Cmnd. 684).

FRIDAY, 24TH APRIL—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

The House will wish to know that the Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry on the allegation of assault on John Waters, together with the evidence given before the Tribunal, is available now in the Vote Office.

Mr. Gaitskell

The Lord Privy Seal has announced a very long list of Measures to be considered on Tuesday. Can he give an assurance that if it does not appear to be possible to get through all the business, it is not the intention of the Government to keep the House until a very late hour? Would he also give an assurance that the Third Reading of the Street Offences Bill will, equally, not be taken at a very late hour on Wednesday, as it is a matter of great interest to many hon. Members?

Further, will the Government find time, before the Foreign Ministers' conference, for a debate on foreign affairs, because even if the Government, as appears to be the case, are unwilling to say anything at all about their plans, it is desirable that they should hear from the House what the House thinks about the whole situation?

Mr. Butler

I will consult my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about a foreign affairs debate. Whether the business for Tuesday—much of which comes from another place—finishes at a comparatively early hour will, I feel sure, depend upon the sweet and friendly co-operation of the Opposition, but I will bear the point in mind.

As to the Street Offences Bill, I feel, equally, that it is worth our envisaging a Third Reading that evening. I do not think that we want to keep the House unduly late, but I should like the Third Reading to remain on the business, so that we can attempt to get the Bill if we can.

Mr. Woodburn

The Leader of the House has said that the Report on the Waters case is now available. Can he say whether any Government action will be involved and, if so, whether the Government have decided on that action?

Mr. Butler

I think that it would be much better for hon. Members to read the Report before I give any answer on behalf of my right hon. Friends as to future action upon it.

Mr. Short

May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the Motion on the Order Paper referring to the replacement of the two " Queen " liners, which has been signed by all Tyneside Members—on this side of the House, at any rate? Will he say whether those hon. Members will have an opportunity to set forth their arguments in more detail in the near future? [That this House, bearing in mind the skill and productive capacity of the shipyards of Tyneside and the steelworks of Durham, both of which are at present seriously under employed, expresses the view that Government assistance towards the replacement of the Queen liners should be conditional upon one liner being built in the North-East.]

Mr. Butler

I cannot foresee an immediate opportunity for a debate, but I have the Motion before me—which I continually study.

Mr. Stonehouse

Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity further to consider the Motion on the Order Paper, signed by 114 right hon. and hon. Members on this side, concerning discriminatory legislation in Southern Rhodesia? In view of the statement recently made by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, and the reintroduction of the Preventive Detention Bill there, will the Leader of the House give the House an early opportunity to discuss its responsibility in this matter? [That this House regrets the discriminatory character of certain measures introduced into the Legislature of Southern Rhodesia by the Southern Rhodesian Government, namely, the Unlawful Organizations Bill and the Bill, presented on 17th March, 1959, to amend the Native Affairs Act; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to exercise the powers vested in him in relation to such measures by Sections 28 and 30 of the Southern Rhodesian Constitution Letters Patent, 1923, to prevent such measures coining into effect until all provisions of such measures which unfairly discriminate against African citizens of Southern Rhodesia are removed.]

Mr. Butler

I do not see an opportunity to consider, at the moment, what is relevant to the British Parliament in these matters, but I will note what the hon. Member has said.

Dame Irene Ward

Following my right hon. Friend's statement on the Motion about the replacement of the " Queens may I ask him whether, before any decisions are taken, there will be an opportunity for discussion, as a number of principles are involved? Will he also hear in mind that I am delighted that the Opposition have followed my lead in suggesting that one of the " Queens " should be built on Tyneside?

Mr. Butler

I feel that what the hon. Lady thinks today, hon. Members opposite think tomorrow. I cannot give any undertaking as to the exact nature of any discussion but, as a very important decision is involved, if hon. Members wish to make their point of view known they should certainly take the opportunity of doing so—and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward).

Mr. G. M. Thomson

Is the Leader of the House aware that the Committee stage of the Baking Industry (Small Establishments and Seasonal Resorts) Bill has been put down for Wednesday, and that the Government have announced their intention to introduce Amendments that would greatly increase the Bill's scope and would, in fact, virtually repeal one of their own Acts? In view of the important and controversial matters raised, will he not see to it that the Committee stage is postponed until further consideration can be given to them?

Mr. Butler

It is a matter for the private Member concerned. I do not think that we can take responsibility for it.

Mr. Brockway

What the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) was not very clearly heard on these benches. If he said that he was considering the relevance of the Motion on the Order Paper, will he bear in mind the speech delivered yesterday by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia? Is it not desirable that this House should have an opportunity of declaring its continued responsibility for the welfare of the African population in Southern Rhodesia?

Mr. Butler

I do not think that the hon. Member himself, or many other hon. Members interested, have been at all backward in expressing their point of view on the matter. My only anxiety is that I do not see an immediate opportunity for debating the specific Motion referred to by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse).