§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Frederick Peart)
Yes, Sir. The business for next week is as follows:
§ MONDAY, 29TH APRIL—Consideration of Private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
§ Afterwards, Second Reading of the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Amendment Bill.
§ Motion on the Sunday Cinematograph Entertainments Order.
§ Prayer on the Dangerous Drugs (Supply to Addicts) Regulations.
§ Prayer on the Industrial Training Levy (Amendment) Order.
§ WEDNESDAY, 1ST MAY—Supply [19th Allotted day]:
§ Debate on an Opposition Motion on Rising Prices.
§ THURSDAY, 2ND MAY—Motion relating to the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity Order.
§ FRIDAY, 3RD MAY—Private Members' Bills.
§ MONDAY, 6TH MAY—The proposed business will be:
§ Mr. Heath
Before Easter I constantly pressed the then Leader of the House for a statement about Forces pay, and we were promised one. It is now long over-due. Can the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a statement is made on the subject next week?
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor promised a debate on the Government's White Paper on Prices and Incomes. In view of the clear conflict which now exists between the Trades Union Congress and the Government, can 503 the Leader of the House say when we are to be able to discuss the White Paper?
§ Mr. Peart
I am well aware of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, but I believe that the Leader of the Opposition will agree that I cannot be bound by that. He will recognise that there is a new situation, because I, as Leader of the House, may have a different approach. It may be an improvement, I do not know. [Interruption.] If the Leader of the Opposition will listen, there have been changes. I will try to see that the promise on Forces pay is fulfilled.
On the question of a debate on the White Paper on Prices and Incomes, the situation has changed in view of a new Ministerial responsibility. We are to discuss this next week. I would like to have discussions with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this; I believe that there could be some difficulty here.
§ Mr. Heath
It is just not good enough for the new Leader of the House to come along and say that he is going to dishonour his right hon. Friend. Right hon. Gentlemen in the same Government are there to honour each other's obligations. Will the Leader of the House kindly go away and return to the custom of honourable conduct which Members try to maintain in this House?
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I remind the House that there is important business ahead, and that many hon. Members are eager to speak. Those who are not might ration their business questions.
§ Mr. Braine
In view of the concern repeatedly expressed on both sides of the House for the future of British Honduras and the fact that the Government have now received the American mediator's report, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that a statement will be made not later than next week on the Government's intentions about the future of this territory?
Mr. Gresham Cooke
Will the Motion on Procedure on the Order Paper, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and I have tabled an Amendment, as well as the Liberal Party and others, be debated?
Mr. J. T. Price
Can my right hon. Friend tell me how much of next week's business will be "bugged" by the apparatus installed by the B.B.C. and controlled from the glass box at the end of the Chamber? Is he aware that there is a great deal of opposition on these benches and in the House generally to the televising and recording of our proceedings and that we shall want a much fuller explanation at an appropriate time of what is taking place?
§ Dr. David Kerr
Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the urgent necessity for the House to debate the recent United Nations Conference on Trade and Development?
§ Mr. Sharples
When will the right hon. Gentleman honour one of his own promises, namely, to give time for a debate on the Report of the Estimates Committee on Prisons and Borstals?
§ Mr. Maudling
In my recollection, the right hon. Gentleman definitely offered half a day. The only point at issue is whether half a day is enough or whether the whole day, which everyone wanted, would be right.
§ Mr. Turton
Further to the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), do I understand that the Motion on Procedure is not being taken tonight, as is on the Order Paper, but that it will be taken on Monday?
§ Mr. E. Rowlands
Would my right hon. Friend clear up what he said about the important debate on the Estimates Committee's Report on Prisons and Borstals? Will he give an assurance that it will be a whole-day debate? That was the bone of contention with members of the Committee last time.
§ Mr. Deedes
In view of the growing doubt on the subject, do the Government intend to enable the House to 506 debate the question of the Channel tunnel before we are irretrievably committed to it?
§ Mr. Wellbeloved
Would my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate to restore public confidence in the ability of citizens to write to their Member of Parliament without fear of their letter being released for political purposes?
§ Sir T. Beamish
How much longer is the House to be kept in the dark about the future of the Territorial Army, the abolition of which was announced last January, since when there has been no statement whatsoever? Is this not a disgraceful state of affairs? May we have a statement next week?
§ Mr. Mackintosh
I appreciate that the time of the House is limited to very important and pressing matters, but would my right hon. Friend consider arranging 507 for a debate to take place in the Scottish Grand Committee on the newly published Report on the Central Borders of Scotland which, to people in that area, merits discussion, if not necessarily time on the Floor of the House?
§ Mr. Kenneth Lewis
What will happen on Monday when we have Questions down to the Ministry of Labour, but there is no Minister of Labour, and when there is only a First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity? Will the right hon. Gentleman change the right hon. Lady's title back to "Minister of Labour", or will the name of the Ministry be changed before we reach those Questions?
§ Mr. Kenneth Lewis
On a point of order. This puts the House in an extra-ordinary situation. On Monday, we shall have a Minister answering for a Ministry which will change within a 508 week, and we have not a Minister representing that Ministry.
§ Viscount Lambton
Would the right hon. Gentleman be more definite in his assurance that there will be a statement on British Honduras, bearing in mind that the Foreign Secretary earlier said that there would be a statement following the mediator's report? It is of the utmost importance that we have a positive assurance that there will be a statement in the near future.
§ Mr. Marten
In view of last week's statement about E.L.D.O., will the Government give time for a debate on space?