Mr. H. Wilson
May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
§ The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd)
Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 27TH APRIL—Consideration of Private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, debate on an Opposition Motion on the Draft Order in Council on the British Guiana Constitution.
1507 TUESDAY, 28TH APRIL—Supply [14th Allotted Day]: Committee.
A debate on Maritime Nuclear Propulsion.
As the House is aware, the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down opposed Private Business for consideration at seven o'clock.
Motions on the Price Stability of Imported Products Orders.
WEDNESDAY, 29TH APRIL—Debate on a Government Motion on the Second Report from the Public Accounts Committee, Session 1963–64, on Guided Weapons Contracts, House of Commons Paper No. 183.
If, as hoped, the Committee stage of the Resale Prices Bill is disposed of today, then the business on THURSDAY, 30TH APRIL, will be Second Reading of the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Bill, and of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY, 1ST MAY—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 4TH MAY—The proposed business will be: Supply [15th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on the South-East Study and the White Paper on South-East England (Command No. 2308).
Mr. H. Wilson
While a debate on perpetuities and accumulations will be highly appropriate in present circumstances, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in the debate on Wednesday, on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, it is the intention of the Opposition to table an Amendment to the Government's Motion—whatever it is—of a censorious character on the failure of the Government to protect the taxpayer in this matter?
Further, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to provide facilities at an early date for a debate, which I am sure that the whole House will want to have, on the question of Southern Rhodesia?
§ Mr. F. M. Bennett
Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed the Motion on the Order Paper concerning the pay of pharmacists, which has been signed by over two dozen Conservative Members? [That this House urges the Minister of Health in his current review of remuneration to pharmacists for National Health Service dispensing, in providing for a fair intrinsic profit element, to include adequate provision to cover all overhead expenses of the services rendered so as to obviate the need for pharmacists to have to sell other non-pharmaceutical goods to subsist.]
As the Government have now generously acceded to the terms of the Motion, will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the fact that we shall not now require to debate the matter?
Secondly, in view of talk recently about the political courage needed for by-elections, can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether a Writ has been issued for the Scotland Division of Liverpool? If not, will the Opposition pluck up courage to do so?
§ Mr. G. Thomas
In view of the mounting evidence of renewed pressure by ground landlords on leaseholds in South Wales, and as it is a very long time since the House discussed the leasehold problem, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether we are to have an opportunity between now and July to discuss this question?
§ Mr. Thomas
With great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that was another question, but I will be very pleased to see him if there is any chance of a debate on leasehold. I will see him after business questions have finished.
§ Mr. J. Morris
Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen the Motion on the Notice Paper inviting the steel companies who are now indulging in an anti-public ownership advertising spending spree to publicise the views of the Prime Minister on that part of the industry still remaining under public ownership—Richard Thomas and Baldwins—and his confidence in its record to date? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange a debate on current political advertising, which is making a mockery of the Representation of the People Act?
§ [That this House, noting that the publicly-owned coal industry is shortly to assist both the privately- and publicly-owned sectors of the steel industry by reducing the price of coking coal by 2s. 6d. per ton and the congratulatory terms of that part of the Chancellor's Budget speech announcing this saying that it was encouraging that the National Coal Board was able to make this reduction and that it was a useful contribution towards keeping industrial costs competitive and provided a foundation upon which to work, and also noting that the Prime Minister in answer to a question on 24th March, 1964, confirmed that he had confidence both in the management and efficiency to date of that part of the steel industry which still remains in public ownership, namely Richard Thomas and Baldwin's, invites the British Iron and Steel Federation, the Steel Company of Wales, Dorman Long's, Stewart and Lloyd's and other organisations indulging in anti-nationalisation advertising to devote one-tenth of their expenditure to publicising the above views of Her Majesty's Government on the success of industries in public ownership.]
§ Sir H. Legge-Bourke
Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether it in intended to publish the Report of the Study Group under the chairmanship of Sir Thomas Padmore and, possibly, lay a White Paper before next Tuesday's de- 1510 bate on marine nuclear propulsion? I understand that the Report is ready.
Mr. H. Wilson
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, while we considered putting the two subjects together for the one debate, we thought it right to confine it to maritime propulsion, as the debate is to cover only half a day? However, since there is a general desire in the House for a debate on power generation and the atomic reactor programme, do the Government intend to provide time to debate any White Paper on the subject that we would like to discuss?
§ Sir G. Nicholson
Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that a large section of opinion in the House and throughout the country views with regret the prospect of a debate on Southern Rhodesia when the situation there is exceedingly delicate and that, however good people's intentions may be it might cause a great deal of harm?
§ Mr. Popplewell
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the Motion on the Order Paper in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) and many other hon. Members?
[That this House deplores the refusal of the Minister of Transport to allow British Railways to tender for the manufacture of wagons and containers for private rail users which has thus prevented free competition between the 1511 public and private sectors of the railway manufacturing industry.]
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the general dissatisfaction expressed yesterday by the Trades Union Congress about the refusal of the Minister to grant this permission? In view of the importance of the matter for the general well-being of the services concerned, will he arrange for a debate on this Motion, if not next week at an early date?
§ Dame Irene Ward
Will my right hon. and learned Friend return to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke)? Is it not a fact that the Minister of Transport has promised to announce the name of the reactor to be chosen for maritime nuclear propulsion? Are we to have information about the choice of the reactor before we have the debate next week, so that we may really be able to discuss the matter with some knowledge of what we may be looking to for the future? I want that reactor to be named, if possible.
§ Mr. Grimond
Arising out of that question, I understand that the debate is to be confined to nuclear propulsion. If so, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman throw any light on the question when we may receive the decision of the Atomic Energy Commission about the siting of a fast reactor? There are Questions about this on the Order Paper today, one of which gives the impression that the Government might have had a hand in it. Does that mean that the decision is about to be taken? If so, will we have it by the time the matter is debated?
§ Mr. McMaster
In view of the adverse trend in the unemployment figures for Northern Ireland, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider fixing an early date for a debate on Northern Ireland?
§ Mr. Berkeley
Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether the Government will find time for a debate on the Plowden Report?
§ Mr. Rankin
The Leader of the House seemed rather reticent last Thursday when I asked about the Whitsun Recess. Is it a fact that this year there will be no Whitsun Recess, due to the pressure of Government business on the time of the House?
§ Mr. Lloyd
There is a great deal of pressure on the time of the House, as is quite apparent from the nature of the questions asked today, and the topics suggested for debate. Many important matters are awaiting debate. However, I will not be completely negative today. I think there is a possibility that there may be a Whitsuntide Recess.
§ Mr. W. Hamilton
Will the Leader of the House give serious consideration to his own suggestion that there should be a full day's debate on the nationalised industries, so that, among other things, we may compare the reduction in prices announced by the National Coal Board with the activities of Ferranti's?
§ Mr. Albu
May I press the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the suggestion made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke)—in view of the obvious misunderstanding and confusion on the part of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)—that the Minister of Transport should publish a White Paper containing the proposals of the Padmore Committee so that the House can at least be informed of the considerations upon which we debate the matter?
§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether, next week, there will be an announcement about a further exchange of prisoners? Is he aware that there is a demand from his back benches that the Prime Minister should be exchanged for Mr. Khrushchev?