HC Deb 31 January 1961 vol 633 cc909-24

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Major SIR WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for financial assistance for the white fish and herring industries, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under any enactment which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

  1. (a) repealing the provisions limiting the power to pay subsidies to cases where the vessel does not exceed one hundred and forty feet in length and prohibiting subsidies in respect of voyages beyond the inshore, near and middle waters or in respect of fish taken in the course of such voyages;
  2. (b) authorising increases, not exceeding three million pounds at a time, in the limit on the aggregate amount of the white fish and herring subsidies;
  3. (c) increasing to twenty-five million pounds the limit on the amount outstanding at any time of the advances to the White Fish Authority under subsection (1) of section seventeen of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951. as extended to Northern Ireland.—(Mr. Soames.)

10.0 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy (Edinburgh, Leith)

Why is there written into subsection (b) of the Money Resolution the provision which authorises increases, not exceeding £3 million at a time, in the limit on the aggregate amount of the white fish and herring subsidies? I ask that question because whenever the Minister wants more money he has to get the approval of the House. That being so, why is it necessary to write it into the Money Resolution? Secondly, is the Minister aware that this is repeated in the Bill?

If we pass the Money Resolution in its present form, we will be debarred from making any amendments or suggestions with regard to these financial provisions because the Minister has this both in the Money Resolution and in the Bill.

The Minister is restricting it so narrowly that he is allowing the House no freedom to deal with this. What is the reason for it? If what I have said is correct, there might be good reason for withdrawing the Money Resolution, because it is so narrowly drawn, and giving the House freedom to make what amendments it thinks fit when the Bill comes before the House. The Minister has ultimately to bring these Orders to the House to get approval for any extra money that he requires.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames)

When the Bill for the normal £2 million increase was before the House, it was £22 million plus £2 million. There is a total in the Act of £22 million plus £2 million. The £22 million is already there. The Bill is saying, for "£2 million" read "a maximum of £3 million" at any one time. As there is no total, like there was when the original Bill was enacted, it has to be done in this way, but it says that it is a maximum of £3 million. The Bill does not specify that it should be £3 million, and an Order will have to come before the House for its consent each time.

Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) is right. This limits the degree of discussion that can take place on the Bill. Instead of discussing this figure properly, and weighing up the merits of whether it should be £3 million or £3½ million, we shall be debarred from doing that by virtue of the fact that it is included in the Money Resolution.

My hon. Friend is saying that as the sum is specified in the Bill Amendments could be tabled to enable us to have a discussion on the exact figure. But we will now be precluded from doing that because of the terms of the Money Resolution. The only way to circumvent that would be to table an Amendment to decrease the amount, but that is not my hon. Friend's intention. It would be misinterpreted, and we would be accused of wanting to do something which it was not our intention to do. But we cannot do anything else. That is the trouble.

Mr. Soames

I am not saying that we will come with a figure of £3 million. We might come with a lower figure. If we came with a lower figure, the hon. Gentleman could advise us to come for more. Equally, if the hon. Member thought that £3 million was too much he could advise us so. He should realise that this is not a once-for-all £3 million. When the Bill is enacted, if he thinks the £3 million is insufficient he can recommend the Government to come back with another Order, which is within their power under the Bill.

Mr. Thomas Fraser (Hamilton)

The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with this. He is responsible for the agriculture industry as well. In a few weeks' time he will be telling us the result of his conversation with the National Farmers' Union. No limitation is imposed upon him by Statute as to the amount of the taxpayers' money he can give the agriculture industry by way of subsidy, and we say that if he feels he must have this measure of freedom in dealing with agriculture, when he has had legislation on the Statute Book for some years providing for the paying of a subsidy with a ceiling of £22 million by the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board—subject to the power to increase the £22 million to £24 million—he ought not to think that when he is enacting fresh legislation he can provide in the Money Resolution, which governs the Bill, that no future Order will be made for a sum exceeding £3 million.

It may be that an Order lasting for twelve months and providing for £3 million would be adequate. That might be the case even if it lasted for eighteen months. But why should he need to ask the House to approve fresh Orders every little while for sums of £3 million when the previous £3 million has been spent, especially when he does not have to do it in respect of the agriculture industry?

In Committee hon. Members on both sides might wish to discuss the question whether the Bill should be amended to remove the reference to £3 million. It is understandable that hon. Members would want to exercise their right to move such an Amendment. If the Money Resolution is agreed to in its present form, however, the Chair will not be able to permit a discussion of such an Amendment in Committee, and that seems quite an unwarranted restriction on the freedom of hon. Members.

We have had many discussions as to whether Money Resolutions should be widely drawn, and in recent years the Treasury Bench has agreed to some extent that they should not be so tightly drawn as previously, and many have been much more widely drawn. In this case, however, we could not have had a more restrictive or narrowly drawn Resolution. Unless there is a very good reason for writing in the specific provision in sub-paragraph (b) the right hon. Gentleman might care to consider taking the Money Resolution back and bringing forward a less narrowly drawn one, in order to enable the House of Commons to carry out its normal function of proposing and considering reasonable Amendments in Committee.

Mr. Soames

The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) gave me the impression that he thought that the Bill was endeavouring to do more than it does. He said that it might be all right if the Order were for one or two years, and that is the position. This arises out of the Act of 1953, which comes to an end in 1963. That Act provided for a payment of £22 million plus, on an Order, an extra £2 million, the whole thing to finish in 1963, by which time fresh legislation would be required if we wanted to continue this conception. We needed the Bill because ships over 140 ft. in length and ships fishing in distant waters were not included.

The Bill includes them, and instead of having, on an Order, a once-and-for-all £2 million—which was what the House had to deal with under the original Act—we have substituted the provision that by Order, the sum can be £3 million. But if £3 million is not enough we can come to the House with another Order. In fact, it ends as the hon. Gentleman said in a couple of years' time. The reason we did not put a ceiling on is that the ceiling of £22 million was there and this gives the House full Parliamentary control, in as much as if we wanted more than £3 million, we have to come back to the House.

Mr. T. Fraser

The right hon. Gentleman is beginning to get the point. He can come back to the House, he says. We are saying that instead of putting this limitation into an Act of Parliament, as he is seeking to do he might first give the House of Commons the opportunity of discussing whether it would have a ceiling in the Bill. But that opportunity is being denied to the House, because this ceiling is being put in the Money Resolution. That is the point. If he did not have the ceiling in the Money Resolution the House could consider whether it would put a ceiling in the Bill. If it was not there, the right hon. Gentleman would still have the power to come to Parliament with an Order providing for the sum of £2 million or £3 million as he thought fit—or even £4 million. But he is prejudging the whole issue. By forcing this Money Resolution through in its present form he is not giving the House of Commons the opportunity to do its work.

Mr. Soames indicated dissent.

Mr. Fraser

The right hon. Gentleman says "No", but he does not seem to realise that by adopting this attitude he is limiting discussion on this sum of money—this £3 million—to the present debate. If this goes through, there is no possibility of the House of Commons discussing any increase in the £3 million. It is quite obvious that the right hon. Gentleman feels it intolerable that we should be not only exercising our right but doing our duty in raising this matter at the present time. I think that there is much to be said for the right hon. Gentleman having another look at the Money Resolution.

Mr. Willis

The reply of the Minister indicates that he is confused over procedure. All his arguments have been related to whether this provision should be in the Bill, bat at present we are not discussing that. We are discussing what should be in the Money Resolution. We are saying that we should have the right to discuss and amend this sum in Committee, but if the Money Resolution is accepted in its present form we shall be prevented from doing that.

At this moment we are not discussing the merits of whether this should be put in the Bill, and I wish to put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. The Fleck Committee had something to say about the maximum sums which it considered ought to be made as grants. I take it that in discussing this we should have to take into consideration what are the maximum grants to be made in order to estimate with some degree of knowledge the figure which Parliament ought to vote. But we shall not be able to discuss that and the only thing we could do during the Committee stage would be to talk about it on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

Or reduce it.

Mr. Willis

Yes, or reduce it. But one cannot discuss this with intelligence. We cannot ask whether the points made by the Fleck Committee about the maximum sums which ought to be given as grants are taken into account. Neither can we try to modify or change the figure at all.

We are not asking the right hon. Gentleman to give us anything at all apart from the right to put down Amendments and to discuss them. I have no doubt that in the end, with his majority, he will get his own way, but all we are asking is the right of the House to decide this financial matter.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Hoy

There is a very simple issue here. The House has just passed a Motion committing this Bill to a Committee of the whole House. We thought it right that the Minister should have that. Included in the Bill, in Clause I (2) are the words: but no such increase made at any one time shall exceed three million pounds. That is part of the Bill, and a very important part, because it deals with subsidies. That is the limit and it decides what is to be spent over the industry. It may be that in Committee hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will have suggestions to make. It may be that they will have a sum in mind in excess of £3 million, but, if we pass the Order which the right hon. Gentleman has placed on the Order Paper, that will debar the Committee of the whole House from discussing this point because we shall be limited to the sum contained in the Money Resolution.

I should have thought it was so clear that the Minister would have said, "I think it unfair to deny a Committee of the House the right to consider this matter in all its aspects" and, at a glance, would have said that he would take the Money Resolution back. There is nothing to lose by doing that. In any case, he would still have power in Committee to decide what is to be spent.

Mr. Soames

What the hon. Member is anxious about is that the House may feel that more than £3 million is required at any one time. We might also feel that way. That is why it is written into the Bill: but no such increase made at any one time shall exceed three million pounds. If hon. Members think that £3 million is not sufficient, it is possible for them within the framework of the Bill to suggest that £3 million is not enough and to ask the Government to come back with another Order.

Mr. Willis

No.

Mr. Soames

Yes. This can be done "at any one time". It is not once and for all. In the Act as it stood there was £22 million plus £2 million, but now it will be £22 million plus "at any one time" up to £3 million. It is not a specific number of times. So, in fact, the House has a great say.

Mr. Willis

This is not an answer to the question which has been put. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is doing this deliberately or whether he misunderstands the position, but once again he has addressed his remarks to the question of whether this should be in the Bill. We are not discussing that. The argument he has now advanced on three occasions would be suitable on the Committee stage of the Bill, but we have not reached that stage.

All we are asking is for the opportunity to discuss it on the Committee stage of the Bill. We are trying to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if he insists on this Money Resolution we shall be debarred from discussing an increase in this sum when we reach Committee. That seems elementary. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in all fairness he ought to try to answer the arguments we have been putting instead of answering something which is in his own mind and something which is more appropriate to the Second Reading of a Bill. All we are asking is for freedom to discuss on the Committee stage of the Bill whether the sum should be £3 million or more. That is a very modest request.

If we do not do this we may be able to carry on for an hour or two now to discuss it on the Money Resolution, but that would not he fair to hon. Members (because they would not have had time to look up all the facts. I am putting the facts now. Obviously the Minister does not know them. He has not taken part in sufficient legislation to understand how this Assembly works. By his attitude he is curbing the freedom of the Committee to discuss the spending of public money, a matter in which we are primarily concerned. He is gagging the Committee in a matter of importance to every taxpayer, a matter of how money should be spent which is raised by various methods of taxation. Surely that is not fair.

The right hon. Gentleman is kindly disposed and well-intentioned, and I do not think that he wishes to gag the Committee on this important issue, but in fact he is doing so because apparently—I do not know whether this is so—he does not know the difference between the Money Resolution and the Committee stage. I ask him to address his reply not to the Bill but to our arguments for the right to discuss this matter in Committee

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

As a mere English Member I should like to point out that this is neither specifically a Scots point nor a new point. With great respect to him, the right hon. Gentleman has not stated to us clearly, though no doubt he understands, what is involved. The Money Resolution contains a provision in sub-paragraph (b) authorising increases not exceeding £3 million at a time. It is not a question of the total amount but of the maximum at a time. As long as the Money Resolution stands, I suggest that in Committee any Chairman is bound to rule that an Amendment to go beyond £3 million at a time is out of order. There is no doubt about that.

The Bill contains a similar provision, and the only point which we are discussing is not whether the provision should stand in the Bill but whether we should be precluded by the terms of the Money Resolution from discussing that provision and putting Amendments down to it.

This matter arose, though perhaps not for the first time, in 1937, and the right hon. Gentleman will find the following statement, made on 9th November, 1937, on page 703 of Erskine May: … instructions were to be given to the departments and the Parliamentary Counsel's Office alit financial resolutions in respect of bills should be so framed as not to restrict the scope within which the committees on bills may consider amendments further than is necessary to enable the Government to discharge their responsibilities in regard to public expenditure, and to leave to the committee the utmost freedom for discussion and amendment of details which is compatible with the discharge of those responsibilities. Since the provision is in the Bill itself, and since the right hon. Gentleman has the usual Government majority, he does not require this Money Resolution to enable him to discharge responsibilities in regard to public expenditure. The only point about keeping it in the Money Resolution is that no discussion will be possible in Committee, and that is the very point which was objected to in 1937 and which the Prime Minister of the day said should be avoided.

I did not know that this point would arise, and I have not the exact date of the reference, but three or four years ago exactly the same point was raised and the Government repeated and circulated to the Departments what was said in 1937, what appeared in Erskine May and exactly what I have read out. I speak in all seriousness and with a full sense of the responsibility which even an Opposition have from time to time. I recognise that the Government have a general financial responsibility. However, in this case they can perfectly well stick, if they choose, to the provisions in the Bill, resist any Amendment, and discharge their responsibilities in that way. In those circumstances, what is the reason for putting into the Money Resolution a provision which can have no other effect than to limit discussion? Why not leave it to the Bill? Is it right to use Money Resolutions in this way?

This is a case—they occur occasionally—in which the Money Resolution should be taken back, these words omitted, and the matter left to discussion in Committee. It is no doubt true that, if the right hon. Gentleman chooses, even now he can carry through his Money Resolution and have the satisfaction of a victory of that kind. Surely this is a matter at which the Government ought to look a little further than that They should consider the general principle. It must be wrong in a case like this to have these words in simply for the purpose of limiting discussion. I am not saying that it was so intended.

Money Resolutions are a bad habit. What has happened in the long history of Money Resolutions is that time and time again they have become more restrictive and then, at the instance of the House itself, some instructions of the kind I have read have had to be issued. It happened in 1937 and a few years ago. Now the bad habit begins again. The Departments say, "It is much simpler to put it into the Money Resolution and then those gentlemen in the House will not be able to do too much talking about it".

The Money Resolution should be taken back and brought forward again. I have no power to pledge my right hon. and hon. Friends in this matter, but I am sure that they would view an amended Money Resolution much more kindly than they view this one and its passage might well be more peaceful than the passage of this Money Resolution appears to be. I urge the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of the House and the proper consideration of these matters, not to debar discussion on this by the terms of the Money Resolution and accordingly to take it back and bring it forward again without the limiting words in sub-paragraph (b).

Mr. Soames

I assure right hon. and hon. Members opposite that there is no endeavour to stifle discussion. Neither is there any question of victory or defeat, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) put it. There cannot be a blank cheque. Some figure must be attached to this. We are in the difficulty that, instead of just being able to leave the Order aspect of it, we have had to put this figure in. In order to get around the trouble which hon. Members might have had of feeling that they were limited to £3 million, there are the extra few words "at a time". There has to be some ceiling to it. This is to enable the maximum discussion to take place and to give the maximum control to Parliament with, at the same time, a ceiling being placed upon it.

Mr. Ross

I wonder if the Minister knows what he is talking about. I do not think that he has listened to the case. He said that there is no endeavour to stifle discussion. If he is not prepared to remove these words, he will stifle discussion. Whether he likes it or not, and whether he knows it or not, the fact is that discussion on the Committee stage of any Bill is governed by the terms of the Money Resolution. If it says that there shall be advances of £3 million and any hon. Gentlemen or hon. Ladies opposite, whose enthusiasm for subsidies has changed during the discussion of a Bill like this as compared with their speeches on the hustings, decide to increase it from £3 million to £4 million, they will be immediately told by the Table that it is out of order because it runs counter to the Money Resolution. The same thing will apply to the figure of £27 million which he has got as an aggregate. Whether he knows it or not, that is a fact.

10.30 p.m.

He said that we cannot have a blank cheque. Where did he get that one from? I could draw his attention to Money Resolution after Money Resolution in which there are references to increases without any reference to a ceiling figure. I would ask him to think about this again. He will not be the first Minister who has withdrawn a Money Resolution.

Mr. James McInnes (Glasgow, Central)

Nor the last.

Mr. Ross

I do not suppose he will be the last either.

Would it not be better to do it now, rather than in the middle of the Committee discussion of the Bill? If he has a word with his right hon. Friend sitting beside him he will probably remind him of what happened during Committee on the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill. Then we got a new Money Resolution, in the middle of the Committee proceedings, to enable us to widen our discussion. It is fundamental to discussion of a Bill to have a Money Resolution of a sort to enable us to have that discussion. He said we could not have it.

I will tell him what kind of Money Resolution we ought to have. In subparagraph (b) all he has to do is to remove the words after "authorising increases" to "in the limit". The words to leave out are: not exceeding three million pounds at a time It is as simple as that. The same thing should be done in sub-paragraph (c). Let it read: increasing the limit on the amount outstanding at any time". If he thinks that he will permit discussion on the figures of £3 million and £25 million if he does not do that, he is mistaken. No amendment of these figures will be possible.

I am sure that it is not he who is doing this. His name does not appear on the Money Resolution. It is the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury which appears. I do not see him here.

Mr. Willis

Yes, the Treasury.

Mr. Ross

It is a Treasury matter. I am glad to see that the Financial Secretary is wandering in, because he will be able to tell us now why the Treasury insists on having these figures in the Money Resolution. Of course, the Treasury does want a ceiling: it does want limits. However, if the Government want us to have a wide discussion in Committee on the Bill they will have to give us a wider Money Resolution than this, so I suggest to the Minister that he will not lose face by withdrawing the Money Resolution and placing on the Order Paper another one. He would not even hold up progress of his Bill by putting down another Money Resolution which would permit the widest possible discussion in Committee on the Bill.

Mr. Willis

We do not seem to be getting very much assistance from the Government on this rather important Money Resolution. I had it in mind to repeat some of my arguments, but I was afraid, Sir William, that you would rule me out or order; but we have not yet had a reply to the arguments which have been put forward about the limitation in the Money Resolution. As the Government do not seem prepared to alter the limitation, I think that we must ask the Government to justify, as they have not yet, the sums specified in the Money Resolution, because we shall get no other opportunity to discuss it. I think that the right hon. Gentleman might now start to give us a few of the reasons which have led to the insertion of "three million pounds" in paragraph (b) and "twenty-five million pounds" in paragraph (c).

Would it be right to assume, for instance, that this £3 million is expected to last for roughly the same time as did £2 million previously? It is fair to ask that. Does the Minister during that time expect to spend £1 million on grants and loans to the distant water fleet? If so, what kind of subsidy is he thinking of for the distant water fleet? What kind of vessel does he hope to subsidise, and to what extent does he expect to subsidise it?

The noble Lady the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) spoke about this during the Second Reading debate that we have just concluded. She said that one vessel might cost as much as £1 million. We should be told whether the Government is thinking in terms of such an amount—or is it to be £250,000, or £300,000—or how much? If we are not told that, we do not know to what extent we are justified in passing this Money Resolution. To do our duty, we must know.

What amount of operational subsidy does the Government have in view? I take it that it is an operational subsidy only. Is it to be exactly the same as for the middle-water boats? How long does the Minister expect that this £3 million will last—eighteen months? I understand that that sort of period is envisaged in dealing with this tidying-up business. If he does not expect it to last as long as that, why not make it £4 million?

We are entitled to answers to some of those questions. We shall not be allowed to ask them during the passage of the Bill, so we must know now what is in the Minister's mind. Before we proceed with this Money Resolution, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will outline exactly what he envisages. Does he expect the existing subsidy to continue for the inner and middle water fleet and something similar for the distant water fleet? Or is he thinking of something new. How long does he expect this money to last?

Mr. Ross

Before the Minister replies, let me say that I hope that he is seriously considering my suggestion to withdraw this Money Resolution. I have to correct something that I said a moment ago. I said that an Amendment would be ruled out by the Table, but that is not so. It would not—it would be printed on the Order Paper, and ruled out by the Chairman of the Committee.

Mr. Soames

I have been asked to say what kind of subsidy we now envisage in comparison with the subsidies paid to the inner and middle water fleets. The answer is, as I said on Second Reading earlier this evening, that it will be on the same basis, largely to ensure that the crews and skippers get the same subsidy. It will be paid on the same outline basis as are those paid to the inner and middle water fleets.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked whether the sum would last for eighteen months. The Act which this Money Resolution amends continues until 1963—so will this continue until 1963? How long will £3 million last? That, I am not in a position to tell him today. Were we in a position to know exactly how much money would be required, we would have written a firm figure into the Bill. There are many unknown quantities in this matter, about which the hon. Gentleman knows well. I think that there are others who have spoken who are not aware of the particular details and difficulties under which the fishing fleet is operating at the moment. There are, as I say, many unknown quantities, and that is why we have said that we may come back again more than once for up to £3 million. It is to that extent that the matter has been left open.

It is absolutely normal practice in an enabling Bill, because that is what this Bill is. It is not a Bill that insists that X amount of money will be spent, but a Bill in which Parliament empowers the Government to pay out in subsidies up to a certain figure. What we have said in the Bill and in the Money Resolution is that we can go up to £3 million and, if necessary, can come back and ask for more.

Mr. T. Fraser

We are not discussing the Bill at all on this occasion. I do not know how often this has to be said before it is driven home on the Treasury Bench. The Minister has spent the last few minutes telling us why he put certain provisions in the Bill. In my respectful submission, he was quite out of order in doing that. The Bill is not now before the House. The House agreed at ten o'clock that the Bill should be committed to a Committee of the whole House. But we have yet to discover when it is to come before the House, so we are not concerned with what is in the Bill but only with what we are to be permitted to do when the Bill is in Committee—what would be reasonable Amendments to discuss.

When we look at the Money Resolution we see that certain words are written into it which will make it impossible to discuss with the Minister what he has just said is a justifiable argument for what is in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman may have a good case for having the words in the Bill, but this is not the occasion to argue that matter. It is the words in the Money Resolution that we are considering.

As I said, and as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said so much more cogently, we had an undertaking a few years ago when the advice which was first given—I believe in 1937—was repeated to the effect that Money Resolutions would be so drawn as to enable a Committee of the House when considering a Bill in Committee to discharge its responsibilities reasonably.

Surely this Money Resolution is in breach of this undertaking given some four years ago. I do not know whether anyone is listening to me or not, but surely this is in breach of an undertaking given not to have a Money Resolution so drawn that we could not have a Committee stage. The Financial Secretary seems to disagree with that proposition.

Is it not a fact that we were promised that the Money Resolution would be so drawn as to allow a Committee to discharge its responsibilities? Are we not to be prevented from having the kind of discussion that hon. Members might properly wish to have on the Bill? As a matter of fact, the Minister himself is so convinced that this is a debatable issue in the Bill that every time he has risen to his feet he has not discussed the Money Resolution but the Bill itself. Obviously, therefore, he thinks that this is a matter worth discussing, because he has insisted on doing that.

We are not doing that. All that we are saying is that we are just as concerned as the Minister that we shall discuss what is in the Bill. But we shall be able to do that only if the Money Resolution is withdrawn and if we get the kind of Money Resolution which four years ago Ministers said that we would get and the kind of Money Resolution that we have had on a good many other Bills. That is all that we are asking for.

I thought it relevant, Sir William, when I rose the first time to remind the right hon. Gentleman—

It being a quarter to Eleven o'clock, The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 1A (Exemptions from Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)).

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.