With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement about the subjects for debate on Wednesday and Friday of this week.

WEDNESDAY 5 JUNE—Opposition day (12th allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "The government of London", followed by a debate entitled "Training cuts and the unemployed". Both debates arise on Opposition motions.

FRIDAY 7 JUNE—There will be a debate entitled "Nationalisation, denationalisation and renationalisation", on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

In addition, at the end of tomorrow, there will be Ways and Means resolutions relating to the Finance Bill.

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that statement. It is helpful to the House to know the subjects for debate on Wednesday, as they could not be announced before the recess. When the Minister replies to the debate on London, will we hear whether the Government have any policies or ideas for the better government of our capital city? Is it too much to hope that, in the second half of our Supply day on Wednesday, we shall have an explanation from the Ministers about the disastrous and inexorable increases in unemployment, and discover whether they share the view of the Chancellor of the exchequer that the disastrous level of unemployment is "a price worth paying"?

With regard to the first debate, I am sure that my hon. Friend who will deal with the debate will make clear the Government's constructive policies for London—which will not, unlike the Opposition's policies, include the return of l he unlamented Greater London council.

The second debate is fundamentally about training. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend who will speak in that debate will make clear the much greater expenditure on training and emphasise the increase in the number of training places for young people under this Government and at the present time compared with the position under the Labour Government. No doubt he will also stress, as the Financial Times reported this morning, that Labour's minimum wage policy would reduce the incentive both for workers to train and for employers to train them.

Several Hon. Members:

rose—

Order. I remind the House that this is a narrow statement about this week's business. It should not range wider than the two debates in question.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that on Friday it will be appropriate to debate the recent Aims of Industry document which calculated that Labour's renationalisation programme would cost the taxpayer about £7 billion per annum? Does my right hon. Friend agree that countries throughout the world, even those in eastern Europe, have now rejected the dogma of nationalisation to which the Labour party is still wedded?

Mr. MacGregor: It will be entirely appropriate to discuss those matters on Friday. Labour has put forward at least three major renationalisation proposals and the debate will be another example of how Labour's tax and expenditure pledges simply do not add up. My hon. Friend is right to say that a very big cost is attached to those commitments.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Wales either to intervene in Wednesday's debate or to make a statement about the increasing jobs crisis facing the valley communities, especially my communities in Merthyr and Rhymney, where during the recess there was an announcement about the closure of the Thorn lighting plant, which has been with us since 1947? On top of that, there have been 300 redundancies at Hoover and the deep navigation colliery in Treharris has closed. Will the Leader of the House make sure that the Secretary of State explains to the House how his valleys initiative will be bolstered to deal with our growing jobs crisis?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, Wednesday's debate will last only three hours, and so that those who wish to take part can do so, there will be a limit on the number of Government spokesmen. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's general points to the attention of whomever will speak for the Government.

Perhaps my right hon. Friend could take himself back to the interesting suggestion by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that we should decant a few Opposition Members into county hall. If that were done and Opposition Members got their feet under the table there, there would be no risk whatever of the return of the Greater London council.

That would depend on which Opposition Members were there, but I recall that some Opposition Members who were in county hall engaged in massive empire building and in a great deal of unnecessary expenditure for the people of London.

May I ask the Leader of the House to tell his colleague who will speak in Wednesday's debate on London matters that one of the issues about which Londoners most want to hear in the context of the Government's policy for the remainder of this Parliament is what they will do properly to house people in the capital city? What will they do to remove more and more people from the streets, to stop rents escalating out of control, the regular repossessions—

Order. Such matters would be much more appropriate for Wednesday's debate. We have three more statements to come. I ask hon. Members to ask questions and not to make statements.

Will the Minister make sure that his colleague deals with these issues on Wednesday and gives some positive answers and statements?

I am tempted to answer that myself, but I shall bear in mind what you have said, Mr. Speaker, and simply say that the Minister will deal with those matters in the debate.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the debate will provide an opportunity to test the Opposition's priorities, given that the Leader of the Opposition will not say whether a Labour Government would spend more money on health? They want renationalisation and they will either confiscate or say that there is a great priority and will take shares away from pension funds and individuals rather than bolster the public services. May we also check that the nationalization— —

Order. That would be interesting for Friday's debate, but I think that the hon. Member has asked his question.

On the priorities of nationalisation, if we are told by the official spokesman for the Opposition— —

Order. It is unfair to ask more than one question. The hon. Gentleman is overdoing it.

Such a programme would cost the country too much.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right that the Labour pledges involve massive expenditure, which would have to be financed at the expense of the taxpayer and of the priorities that we believe to be right.

The Leader of the House said that, in the debate on London, his ministerial colleague would outline the Government's constructive proposals. In that case, he will not have anything to say.

Nor have I, because that is a very empty suggestion.

Has my right hon. Friend received any request from the Opposition—who have been loud in saying that they want to discuss the proposed possible merger or takeover of ICI, but, when given an opportunity to debate it on an Opposition day, have run away from doing so?

The Opposition have chosen the two subjects that they have for Wednesday, and both choices are theirs.

Will the Leader of the House confirm that a Scottish Office Minister will wind up the second of Wednesday's two debates? Would that not provide him with an opportunity to explain to Scottish Members of Parliament the circumstances surrounding the current threat of the closure of Ravenscraig, Scotland's deepening unemployment crisis, and the failure of the Scottish office to provide training, especially for those who are physically and mentally handicapped? That is now a scandal in Scotland, and we should have a statement about it.

Wednesday's debate will inevitably be short, and I cannot at this stage say which Minister will wind up the debate to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he meant by the ways and means resolutions to which he referred?

That is a fair point. The ways and means resolutions relate to amendments and new clauses passed during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. They cover a number of matters, and I would be happy to advise the hon. Gentleman what they are. In any event, they were matters dealt with in Committee.