FINANCE BILLS

HC Deb 01 May 1967 vol 746 cc227-68

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [26th April], That, during the remainder of the Session, where, in respect of a bill for imposing, renewing, varying or repealing any charge upon the people, either—

1. (a) Mr. Speaker has been informed that no general agreement to allot a specified number of days or portions of days to the consideration of the Bill in Committee or on report has been reached, or
2. (b) any general agreement of which Mr. Speaker has been informed is, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, working ineffectively,

a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown that the Business Committee shall make recommendations to the House as to the number of days or portions of days to be allotted to the consideration of the bill in committee, on report or on third reading, and as to the time by which proceedings on any parts into which they may divide the bill shall be brought to a conclusion in committee or on report and any further recommendations which may in their opinion be necessary to ensure the bringing to a conclusion of the proceedings on the parts of the bill allotted to those days or portions of days; and the question on such a motion shall be put not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon; That for the purposes of this Order the Business Committee shall consist of the Chairmen's Panel together with not more than five other Members to be nominated by Mr. Speaker: That, when the Business Committee shall have reported the resolution or resolutions containing their recommendations to the House, the provisions of sub-paragraph (c) of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) shall apply to the proceedings on any motions for the consideration of such report and on the consideration of the said report:—

Question again proposed.

Mr. Speaker

I believe that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) was in possession of the House.

9.43 p.m.

Dr. Reginald Bennett (Gosport and Fareham)

As I was saying, when I was bluntly interrupted on the previous occasion, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House argues cogently and closely, but not always from the soundest of premises. Although he was at his most persuasive last Wednesday, he put up some thoroughly bad propositions. At the moment of interruption—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order, will hon. Gentlemen leave the Chamber quietly?

Dr. Bennett

At the moment of interruption, I was referring to his words in c. 1517: We agreed that we should have voluntary agreements. We are both agreed that that would make progress. That is all agreed between the two sides. Later at c. 1519 he said: … one of the ways of getting good sense … was to get agreement before the Bill was discussed and to get it firmly so that we would know where we were."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1967; Vol. 745, c. 1517–19.] In my view, this is to hand over the Opposition, literally gagged and morally bound, to the mercies of the Government. This would lead to two abuses. First, it would lead to an increase, if that were possible, in Ministerial arrogance or intransigence, or even in getting away with ignorance. Ministers know that they cannot get away with this now, because if they try—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is impossible for an hon. Gentleman to address the House against a background of sustained conversations.

Dr. Bennett

Thank you, Mr. Speaker: If there is a predetermined timetable, it is possible for Ministers to stonewall until the time runs out. I believe that the Opposition must have a sanction against Ministers who do this.

My second objection is that it is possible, once a timetable has been imposed, for the Opposition largely to be shut out by Government back benchers. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) mentioned filibustering the other day by Government back benchers. Even on Wednesday morning sittings the Government side of the House consumed more time than the Opposition in discussing this Guillotine Motion. That is nothing to what they would do if the proceedings were gagged. All that would be necessary would be for the Patronage Secretary to say, "O.K., boys—move in", or just remove any natural curb which we know commonly exists on Government back benchers and then all the calculations are torpedoed, whether by design or by the natural prolixity of the Socialists.

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

Would my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Bennett

Certainly.

Sir D. Glover

In the debate which has just finished, Members on the Government side of the House took over 45 minutes more than the Opposition.

Dr. Bennett

That is one of the intentions or ideas which may underline the introduction of this Motion by the Government.

The Leader of the House recognises this possibility. On Wednesday he said: If Government back benchers were to abuse the rights which they would obtain via this sanction, they would more effectively destroy this than any reserve powers. If Government back benchers were to filibuster on the ground that they now have the chance, they would destroy this agreement in a year, and the Opposition—rightly so—would not give it to us again."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1967; Vol. 745, c. 1520.] That is absolutely right.

This sort of agreement which gives carte blanche is fatal. Therefore, I cannot accept it. An agreed timetable can be fixed only just before the Amendments are discussed and after all the Amendments and new Clauses have been handed in. Within 24 hours of the debate is the earliest at which an agreed timetable can be fixed. This is approximately the state of affairs in the agreed ad hoc arrangements which actually do take place nowadays. Once the timetable had been accepted, it would govern the selection rather than the selection governing the timetable. This is the reverse of what is desirable.

The Motion would be infinitely more acceptable if the Amendments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) were accepted. If they were not accepted, the Motion would be hopeless. If we were to accept this Motion I believe that we would betray our colleagues, and, furthermore, we would betray future Oppositions. There are many brash young men opposite, no doubt, who have been here a year who would like to see us shut out. They will not be here at the time of the next Government. Their seats are already forfeit. It is their survivors who will be the sufferers from their high-handedness.

No doubt the right hon. Gentleman intends to use his steamroller to force the Motion upon us, although he said on Wednesday: I would not vote for this Motion if I thought that in any way it reduced the ultimate power of the Opposition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April 1967; Vol. 745, c. 1518.] Surely the right hon. Gentleman can see that it grossly reduces our power. I ask him to live up to his word. I somehow do not believe that he will. He can best be described as being like the character of Lewis Carroll in the Mouse's Tale: ' I'll be judge, I'll be jury ', said cunning old Fury; 'I'll try the whole cause, and condemn you to death.'

9.50 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)

I am extremely glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker. I sought to do so the other day, but my contribution to the debate was somewhat postponed by what I can only describe as a flush of Privy Councillors, who, having rights that I do not enjoy, preceded me in the discussion.

I want ot say how impressed I was the other day by the Leader of the House, who was at his most polite and, therefore, his most persuasive and his most urbane. The threat in what he had to say appeared only rather late on in his speech. I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not personally fancy at all this kind of dilettante dabbling with our procedures which are designed for certain purposes. We have the example of the morning sittings, which have become semi-secret affairs from which large numbers of the public who would like to get into the Gallery are excluded because of staff difficulties. The whole atmosphere of those morning sittings is one which we should not encourage.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman)

I hope that the hon. Member will not say that, because I have frequently asked the Serjeant at Arms for the facts, and I have had to repeat more than once that although there have been occasions in the mornings—perhaps one or two—when some of the public have been excluded, on practically every morning there is plenty of room. I think that it would deter people from coming in if the impression were to be given that there was not room in the morning for those of the public who wished to attend.

Mr. Peyton

I do not want to go on with it, but there is a genuine difference of opinion that many people are not able to get in while there are empty seats in the Gallery.

Mr. Crossman rose ——

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is a digression from the debate. I hope that it will not be pursued.

Mr. Crossman

It is important, when statements are made about the situation in the Gallery, to make it clear that the Serjeant at Arms is prepared to give to the hon. Member the precise figures for any morning to indicate whether he is right or wrong. I hope that he will look at them.

Mr. Peyton

If the right hon. Gentleman says that, of course I will look at the figures with great pleasure.

The other day, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that in putting forward the Motion the Government were making a big concession. Then he produced the argument that we should seek to make a better impression outside. I am sure that this is desirable. Equally, however, I do not believe that our procedure should be entirely dominated by what the public feel about any manoeuvre that is undertaken here.

The right hon. Gentleman also referred to this as simply a sessional experiment. I believe that this is the worst year in which to conduct a sessional experiment. We have for once a fairly innocent and innocuous Finance Bill, but the memories of those of us on this side of the House do not die quite as quickly as that. We still recall a Finance Bill which contained the birth of the Corporation Tax and of the Selective Employment Tax. We do not feel any assurance that horrors of that sort will not be repeated in future. If they are, we shall want a certain amount of time. I, for one, am doubtful whether one can ever rely upon Ministers to feel any great sympathy with the desires of Opposition back-benchers in such a contingency.

The right hon. Gentleman also referred to what he called a voluntary agreement backed by safeguards. That was in the second debate. In the previous debate, he had talked about a voluntary agreement backed by reserve powers. On the second occasion, the stick of reserve powers had been hidden decently under his coat and he did not use such language again. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), however, discerned the threat quickly. He, in his unrecognisable capacity of Little Red Riding Hood, was quick to see the long teeth of this apparently amiable old lady who was introducing quite innocuous proposals.

The whole House, and cerainly we who sit on the back benches of the Opposition side, are grateful to my right hon. Friend for his perception. The right hon. Gentleman used a number of slightly veiled threats. He said that we would see whether my right hon. Friend pursued his very dangerous and extreme action of challenging a balanced compromise put forward unanimously by a Select Committee. On that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman praised the Select Committee to the skies. However, I cannot help feeling that the Select Committee allowed itself to be outmanoeuvred and bamboozled by the Government, and, in particular, by the wiles of the Chief Secretary.

As I see it, the Select Committee made certain proposals which, in their wisdom, the Government turned down. According to the right hon. Gentleman's account, the Select Committee then said to the Government, "What would you do?", thereby exposing itself to a mass of ingenuity. The Government were not slow to take their opportunity, and the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon.

and hon. Friends put forward this proposal which the Select Committee swallowed whole. I, for one, do not support it.

The right hon. Gentleman prayed in aid the fact that the Front Benches agreed with one another. There are some on this side of the House who do not always see in a matter which is the subject of agreement between Front Benches something which is ultimately and finally blessed by heaven. We tend to regard such matters with grave suspicion, and when the right hon. Gentleman says that back bench hon. Members opposite also agree, there is nothing remarkable in that. What would be remarkable is if some of those same hon. Members agreed with this proposal in the future when they are sitting on this side of the House. That would be entirely different.

There is no reason why my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench should worry about it. The only people who are concerned are those whose rights are threatened, namely, Opposition back-bench hon. Members. It is they who will be squeezed out. Their Amendments are the ones for which time will not be found, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) rightly said.

The other day, the Leader of the House denied that there would be any basic shift in the balance of power between the House and the Executive. This is where we disagree with him, because there will be great differences. First of all, Treasury Ministers can expect a great deal more support, not to say padding, from the benches behind them. That will all take away from Opposition time. However, if there is no change in the basic balance of power between the Executive and the House of Commons, why make the change at all—[Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) has something very interesting to say——

Mr. Crossman

He was not saying it to me. I was listening to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) with a very keen ear, and I heard every word that he said.

Mr. Peyton

If there is no change in the basic balance of power, why do we have this Motion? It must achieve some- thing, and I cannot believe that it will achieve anything save to our prejudice.

Another remark made by the right hon. Gentleman was to the effect that fair and orderly discussion depends on each side having ultimate sanctions but not having recourse to them. The burden of our complaint here is that the Government are adding to their ultimate powers and taking away from ours. That is what worries us. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) described the Motion as an attempt to make an honest woman of the Guillotine. I see what he meant. What the Motion is doing in fact is providing a fairly vicious young sister for that lady. Future Oppositions will have to cope with the pair of them.

I profundly agree with the Amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames to which I subsequently added my name. So I do not claim credit for the authorship of those Amendments, though I support them with vigour and conviction. I do not believe that a two-hour debate is an adequate deterrent on the Government. A debate lasting for that amount of time will not make the Government pause before introducing the type of Motion before us. Nor do I find it tolerable that we should be dependent on the opinion of a Minister of the Crown.

The leader of the House should be the first to recollect that when he was in Opposition he did not always find the opinions of Ministers of the Crown wholly acceptable. Indeed, he was a frequent and eloquent challenger of those opinions. In these days, when the power of Government is increasing constantly, I look with ever growing suspicion, dislike and jealousy on the suggestion that we should accept as being something which carries conviction the opinion of a Minister of the Crown.

Ministers can be sub-divided into three categories in their relations with the House of Commons. There are those who fear the House and there are those who despise it. Perhaps those two classes intermix. There are also those, very few of them, who have a deep respect for the House and who always show it. The present Leader of the House is only reasonably young in his tenure of office and it would not become me to pass final judgment on him now. There are few Ministers in the Government today who have shown, in their tenure of office, any very great respect for the House of Commons. There are many, however, who have shown contempt, while there are others who have shown fear.

The Motion can be described as one which calls for more Government and less discussion. The record of the present Government is one that demands a great deal more discussion and a lot less Governmental activity. If the Government wish to introduce and initiate reforms such as this, they may call in aid a Select Committee, but they should, in the long run, impose them on the Opposition rather than seek by wiles to persuade us to agree.

I regard this proposal as wholly unpalatable. The reasons for the procedures of the House of Commons may not always be obvious, but they were mostly created by men whose desire it was to protect the freedom of the individual and the liberty of the subject. Back benchers, who nowadays do not enjoy any very great privileges, should be willing to see what privileges they have go only with the utmost suspicion and care. They should see that if such privileges are to be sacrificed, there must be some very substantial return from the Government. In this case we are being asked to give up something very substantial but are being offered virtually nothing in return.

I pay tribute to the Leader of the House for the courtesy which he has not always shown but which, on this occasion, he did show when moving the Motion. At the same time, however, I believe that his courtesy was matched by his cunning, and my hon. Friends would do well to see through it and reject the Motion.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. James Ramsden (Harrogate)

I almost feel that I should apologise, Mr. Speaker, for seeking to catch your eye twice on the same day. That is contrary to my normal practice, but it so happens that two pieces of business set down by the Leader of the House—the Second Reading of a Bill this morning and now the continuation of the debate on this Motion—are topics on which I have strong convictions. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not blame me if I now make a few remarks in support of the Amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter).

I am not a member of the present Select Committee on Procedure, but I was a member of the 1959 Select Committee, of which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) was also a member. When he was telling the House during our last debate about his conviction that there ought to be a built-in timetable to all Bills, it carried me back to our discussions in that Select Committee in 1959. I remember the apprehension I then felt about the possible developments of this line of argument, so that, in a sense, this present speech voices the deep-seated and long-held apprehensions that I have had on this subject, and I have had this speech under my belt for some considerable time.

What makes me apprehensive of the present proposals of the Leader of the House? I say what I have to say with due deference to the right hon. Gentleman's speech in moving the Motion, and certainly with due deference to the great efforts made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) and his colleagues on the Select Committee to achieve a compromise acceptable to the whole House. Even granted that what we have before us is suggested only as an experiment for this one year, there are substantial objections to the proposed procedure.

The Select Committee itself perhaps tended to undervalue the weight of the evidence given by my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip. In support of that statement, I should like to quote what my right hon. Friend said with reference to the possibility of an agreed timetable, which is the substance of this present proposal. In the first column in page 20 of the Fourth Report, we read: But if you say to the Opposition Chief Whip: 'You must make a voluntary agreement before the Committee Stage starts', he will tell you: 'You are putting me in an impossible position. You are asking me to do something which I cannot carry out'. Later, in discussion with the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), my right hon. Friend said, in the second column on page 27: If Mr. Woodburn is talking about a timetable attached to the Finance Bill, then I think this is a guillotine motion on the Finance Bill by another name; I think it would be so regarded by any Opposition; and I cannot think that any Opposition would agree that that was a good idea. I hope that I have not been too selective, but I thought that those were two noteworthy points in my right hon. Friend's evidence. In view of that I think that when the Select Committee said: Mr. Whitelaw, without committing himself, did not rule this out as a possibility. it was being slightly optimistic, if that is the right word, about that evidence.

I believe that this proposal does constitute a built-in Guillotine on the Finance Bill, and that its effect will be to change the character of the debate on the Finance Bill in such a way that it will not be possible for back-bench members of the Opposition of the day to discharge what I conceive to be their proper constitutional duty with regard to that Measure.

Now, when there is an Amendment concerned with what the Opposition believe to be a bad tax or a proposal for taxation injurious to widespread commercial or private interests, we have a succession of speakers from the Opposition side one after another battering at the Treasury Bench. If that continuous battery is interrupted it is interrupted only by the odd independent-minded hon. Member on the Government side whose convictions drive him to reinforce the arguments put from the Opposition side. Because of that his intervention is all the more telling. Because of this character of the debate concessions are made from time to time by the Treasury Bench, possibly because, the weight of the argument prevails, but also certainly because the length of the debate and the amount of time consumed and the fact that there has been no prior agreement to control that time, because of the very uncertainty of the situation operates on the Government and makes them more disposed to come to an agreement.

Sir Edward Boyle (Birmingham, Handsworth)

My right hon. Friend speaks about "the" debate, but would he not agree that the essence of opposition to a bad tax is that there should be a number of debates on separate Amendments?

Mr. Ramsden

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. We were discussing this the other day. I was about to make that point; my right hon. Friend has anticipated it. Under the present proposal, in the form in which it is in the mind of the Government, they can ultimately control the length of time for the proceedings on the whole Bill, and we shall get the debate developing one-for-one from each side right from the start. I see no reason why that should not happen, and obviously the Government Whips will encourage it.

It may be argued that this will produce a much better balanced debate, but it is certainly not my experience, and I doubt if it is that of my hon. Friends, that what carries conviction in this House and wins concessions is the quality of debate. I am afraid that is not so. If it were, Parliament would be more nearly perfect, but it would be a different world. Apparently what does win concessions is such little power as the Opposition may retain to work their will on the Government and on the Treasury Ministers.

From our point of view, this proposal will produce a different sort of debate. I say "our point of view" because we are the Opposition for the time being. I think it will be a sort of debate which will render us less effective in representing the interests of those affected by the proposals of Treasury Ministers in Finance Bills.

The third point is that there is a sense in which the Finance Bill is special legislation. I do not mean "special" only in the sense that it affects the financial interests of individuals and companies. I do not mean "special" only in the sense, which I think the Opposition Chief Whip meant, in the evidence which has been referred to, of being tied up with the whole question of "No taxation without representation" and so on. It is special in a much simpler and more obvious way in that of all legislation the Finance Bill comes upon the House and the country as it were "out of the blue".

There is no prior consultation before the Chancellor's proposals are introduced because he has to preserve his Budget secrecy. Therefore, consultations with affected interests which normally precede the introduction of important legislation are absent in the case of the Finance Bill. There is very little time between the introduction of the Budget and the bringing forward of the Finance Bill for the interests affected who wish to make representations to be received by Treasury Ministers and for them to have time to deploy their case. The time just does not exist. Therefore, it is all the more incumbent upon Parliament to be able to make the representations which, in the case of other legislation, are made beforehand, often privately to Treasury Ministers. Any proposal which limits Parliament's ability to discharge this duty should be regarded with suspicion.

On a complicated and controversial Bill, one may expect as a matter of course to find a great number of Amendments tabled, many of which hon. Members on this side will wish to argue. This is right and natural. When a tax is bad, or, not to use emotive words, questionable or controversial, the only way open to an Opposition to prove how bad or questionable it is is by moving Amendments, perhaps many of them, each one directed to a particular aspect of the tax or to its effects on a certain group of individuals. With the timetable procedure, if there is a long and balanced debate upon an early group of Amendments about one tax, other Amendments, which other hon. Members may wish to move and which may well be worthy of being moved, will be shoved out and might escape without discussion.

Mr. John M. Temple (City of Chester)

Will my right hon. Friend agree that complete complicated Clauses might go through without discussion if this procedure were adopted?

Mr. Ramsden

A fortiori that is absolutely true. I am not thinking only of the notorious 1965 Bill, in whose passage the Financial Secretary played a great part and in which I played a much smaller part. I am thinking of any controversial Finance Bill. I am thinking of Finance Bills such as that which followed the 'pots and pans' Budget of Lord Butler. Other hon. Members will not have any difficulty in supplying examples. This process, if the Opposition are allowed to go in for it, as I think they must be so allowed, is bound to take a long time.

The corollary is that we shall have to sit late. The Select Committee has started from the position that all-night sittings are undesirable and that the House should make every effort not to sit late. Late sittings have their objections. They are inconvenient to hon. Members. They are inconvenient for the staff in many respects. However, they afford the Opposition an opportunity of doing their constitutional duty, which I do not see any other procedure which I have heard suggested being able to afford. I should be sorry if the House lightly ruled them out.

Although I recognise the great and genuine urge for reform which animates certain quarters of the House at the moment, I think that all these proposals are not particularly necessary, in view of how things have worked, because our experience is that the Government always get the Finance Bill. They do not guillotine it. I do not remember a Finance Bill having been guillotined. Without any elaborate procedure of Motions being moved, the Finance Bill, in the way these things work, carries with it its own built-in voluntary timetable which is not the sort of voluntary timetable suggested in this Motion.

I will tell the Leader of the House how it works, although he knows this perfectly well. In fact, he knows it even better than I do. It works when, after a long debate lasting into the small hours, the group of people principally concerned with carrying on the debates on the Opposition side meet the following morning somewhere to decide on the course of the debates for the next day. Some of them are anxious to go on running something. Others say, "We have given this a good run. The House is getting bored with it, the country is getting bored with it, the Press is getting bored with it. There is no more political mileage in it. We had better have another hour and leave it at that". That is the way it works. No one feels frustrated, and the Government get their Bill. No one can say that the Opposition have been gagged. Concessions are made. People feel that they have won concessions. In the end, the whole thing is wound up, and there are no complaints.

I do not see why matters should not be left as they are. With great respect to the Leader of the House, I should be more convinced of the weight of his proposals if they were supported by any of those whom I remember from his party's days in opposition as big Finance Bill figures. The right hon. Gentleman's activities lay in other directions. I cannot myself claim to be a great Finance Bill figure, but there are those who can. If the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), now Joint Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Economic Affairs, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary or others one can think of really threw their weight behind this proposal, I should be convinced, perhaps, though surprised, bearing in mind that they must know that one day they may find themselves on this side of the House.

It would be a pity if we were to lose some of the rather exciting and unpredictable twists and turns which can occur on the Finance Bill. I remember an occasion when, after a long debate, un-reasonaDly extended, as we, then on the Government side, thought, there was finally a move from, I think, our own Front Bench to report Progress. The then Chairman of Ways and Means refused to accept the Motion on the ground that there had not been any progress for the past four hours. We were all in a quandary, wondering how to get to bed. No one knew how to get the House up because he would not accept the Motion. At the end, someone had to devise a procedure by which it was moved that the Chairman should leave the Chair. This was accepted, with the result that the Government lost the Finance Bill, and a Motion had to be moved to reinstate it. That is only a small thing, but it is part of the atmosphere. Hon. Members opposite may call it an antic, but I should be sorry to lose the unpredictability and flexibility which our procedure has at the moment.

The opposition to the status quo and the enthusiasm for reform stem, I suspect, from the experience of 1965 and the understandable feeling among hon. Members opposite that they spend a lot of time hanging about while the Finance Bill is in progress. I do not think that having to hang about in the building or in the Chamber is, in itself, such a despicable part of Parliamentary procedure. One of the most valuable experiences which hon. Members have to undergo is having to be here. I do not believe that everything of value in Parliamentary life happens in the Chamber or that we are here only to debate back and forth. A great deal of value in our being here lies in the opportunities one has to study our fellow Members and, in particular, those who for the time being are Ministers discharging responsibility on behalf of the Crown. The hot-house and rather strained atmosphere sometimes evident during the passage of the Finance Bill provides not a bad environment in which to assess the character and true qualities of those who are aspiring to lead the House of Commons and the country. I should not, therefore, like to see any change made, and I shall be sorry if the proposals of the Leader of the House are accepted.

10.25 p.m.

Dr. David Kerr (Wandsworth, Central)

There can be few experiences more wounding than to discover that all the kindnesses which one has set out to do are rebuffed by those whom one thought to be one's friends, or even by hon. Members opposite whom one thought might be one's friends, rejected as pieces of cruelty or as cunning, with which the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) charged my right hon. Friend, combined with a sort of disguised courtesy which was the sugar coating to the pill.

In fact, we on the Select Committee on Procedure had everybody in the House in mind when we made some suggestions which the Government, in their wisdom, have been kind enough to take up. Those of us who are, so to speak, hell-bent on reforming this place do not necessarily and always regard the Select Committee on Procedure as the ideal instrument for achieving that.

I speak as a member of the Select Committee, and I should like to elaborate on what I have just said in case anybody should interpret it as an attack either on the Committee or on my fellow members of it. The first thing which I think those Members who oppose the Motion must recognise is how much further some of us would like to go and how steadfastly, intelligently and persuasively we were restrained by some of the members of the Select Committee. Among them, perhaps I might be allowed to mention the right hon. and learned Member for The Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), whose wisdom and experience in the House count for a great deal, certainly on this side of the House and on our side of the Select Committee. We listened to his advice, and his colleagues should know that the modest proposal now before the House was won in the teeth of far greater enthusiasm for reform from people like myself.

Sir D. Glover

Would the hon. Gentleman correct the word "reform" and say "alteration"?

Dr. Kerr

No, Sir. I stick to the good English word "reform", which is really what some of us are very concerned about.

I was about to say that reference has been made to the 1965 Finance Bill. I recognise that the rôle played by that Bill in stimulating an urge for reform among those of us who entered the House in 1964 cannot be over-rated. I am sure that my own interest and enthusiasm for reform stems from those long, weary, and, to me, continuously pointless nights that we spent here.

I acknowledge, of course, that that enthusiasm does not make me an expert on Parliamentary reform. It makes me, I acknowledge with humility, a hothead, which the slow refrigeration of this place may be cooling down a little. What we are faced with tonight is not what I regard as a masterly stroke of reform of the procedure of the House. I very much respect the kind criticism which is offered by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. They are speaking in a way which I admire and applaud. They are speaking for back-bench rights. However, they must not overlook that we on this side of the House also cherish back-bench rights, whether we happen to belong to the party in Government or the party in Opposition we cherish those rights in the same way.

Although I admire the way in which they are doing battle for what we want to preserve, I do not see that the Motion is as damaging as is claimed. In evidence for what I have just said I adduce the fact that the hon. Member for Yeovil based much of his case upon the modest Amendments tabled by himself and his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). They would not in fact so alter the substance of the Motion as to destroy the case for it, which the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman are attempting to destroy. The hon. Member for Yeovil has not destroyed it by simply referring to the modest Amendments.

Mr. Peyton

If the hon. Gentleman looks at HANSARD tomorrow he will see that I spent about a minute and no more in dealing with the specific Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend. I made my comments on quite other grounds.

Dr. Kerr

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but nevertheless he is one of the signatories to the Amendment. He is not evidently deploying a more powerful case in terms of a more powerful Amendment and I rest therefore on my profound belief that he is less concerned to defeat the Motion than to speak vigorously and properly against it.

I must again point out that the hon. Gentleman has his allies on the Select Committee and that the kind of discussion we are taking part in tonight is only a repetition of the kind of discussion which took place in the Select Committee. This is one of the reasons why I tried very hard to resist taking part in this debate. It seems to me that once the Committee has reported its members, apart from perhaps the Chairman and the leader of the Opposition members on the Committee, have a duty not to intervene too long and vigorously in a debate in the House which we have already had in the Committee.

But it is only right, in view of the apparent misconceptions I have heard set forth in this debate, that someone should protect the interests of such worthy people as the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral, both of whom, I assure their hon. Friends, deployed the case to such an extent that some of us who still, despite the evidence, would wish the Finance Bill to be taken in Committee upstairs, are persuaded, at this moment at any rate, that there is a great case for asking the House to adopt this form of procedure for this Session.

We shall have a modest Finance Bill this time and this is a modest Motion for dealing with it. I urge that a close examination of the Motion be made by the House. It has built-in protections— reference to the House, a Committee to steer the Bill and the long history of the Finance Bill procedure which, if one examines the Report of the Select Committee, is determined almost by tradition as to length. That would be taken into consideration by the Business Committee in determining the timing. All these factors are built in protections for the rights of back benchers.

It was this kind of persuasive language which prompted us on both sides of the Select Committee to bring together our very diverse views on this matter and to urge the House to adopt this method for this Session as an experiment in the first place and particularly, I emphasise, until the Committee's more comprehensive review of the whole of Public Bill procedure can be put before the House in order to provide a setting against which any necessary alteration in Finance Bill procedure might become even more acceptable to the House than I think: his Motion should be tonight.

10.35 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

The hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) has reinforced the objection that many of my hon. Friends take to the Motion. I do not want to detain the House unduly, but we are debating something that should not be debated at this hour. It is fundamental to the whole procedures of Parliament. I admit to the Leader of the House that I do not speak for the whole of my own side of the House.

There are many of my hon. Friends, as there are many hon. Members opposite, who take the view of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), who spoke when we last debated this subject. If their thinking were carried to its logical conclusion, it would be said that as the Government had a majority, once they had explained the Bill and once the Opposition Front Bench spokesman had replied, anything which happened after that would be a waste of time and that we might as well have the Division and finish the business. The argument is that anything after that moment is just filibustering—unless it is accepted that the fundamental duty of the House of Commons is the power of delay.

To give the House an example which is valid to this argument, I should like to quote the Termination of Pregnancy Bill. I am not now entering on the rights or wrongs, virtues or vices, of that Bill which, on Second Reading, had a majority of about 223 to 29, an overwhelming majority. However, those who do not believe the Bill to be right have undertaken a detailed examination of the Bill which has resulted in delay. Many organisations which would not otherwise have known of the implications of the Bill are now alerted.

While it would be wrong for me to say what will happen at later stages of that Bill, I think that it will be found that the House is much more closely divided than it was on Second Reading. In other words, the House of Commons will have done one of the jobs for which it is designed, which is to delay the implementation of the Executive's ideas and to give time for opinions outside the Chamber to coagulate and become coherent and receive expression. Anything which reduces that power of delay must take away from the power of the House.

I am not against reform. I have been in the House far too long to believe that there are not some things which we can do to reform it. What makes me suspicious is that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House during 13 years of opposition was conspicuously absent from the detailed discussion of Bills. He came here on many significant occasions, thrilled the House with his oratory, and then went away to some other activity. He was rarely present in the early hours of the morning for detailed Committee stages. With the greatest respect to him—I think that he is learning—he does not understand how the House of Commons works, not even with some of his own procedures. I am sure that if he had realised what would happen, he would not have brought in morning sessions, which are so emasculated——

Mr. Speaker

We have enough to discuss without mentioning morning sittings.

Sir D. Glover

I apologise, Mr. Speaker. In politics it is a very good thing to do one's homework, and if one is to suggest amendments to one's procedure, it is as well to have done one's homework. I remember that the right hon. Gentleman and I were the chairmen of our respective party conferences in 1961 and I remember reading an article which was rather complimentary to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), but which said that the Labour Party conference got into an awful tangle because the right hon. Gentleman had not done his homework.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member himself must do his homework and get back to the Motion.

Sir D. Glover

I promise, Mr. Speaker, that from now on I will be the soul of rectitude, and I am sure that you will not have to call me to order again.

I am sure that the House was impressed by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) and by the danger in the Motion which he outlined. The Motion pays lip service to our procedure, but in practice it takes away much of the Opposition's power for delay and argument. On Committee or Report stage of a Bill, once it is known that the House will rise at 11 p.m., the seven hours allotted to the debate will be equally divided between both sides of the House. If it is known that eight days have been allotted to the Finance Bill, that time will be equally divided between the two sides of the House. I do not blame Government back-bench Members for that. If I were on the Government back benches and this system operated. I should have no hesitation in taking the maximum time I could to deprive the Opposition of the time to marshal and hammer home their case.

At an election there is a minority—although it is amazing how quickly minorities turn into majorities. Millions of people in the country, in that minority, suffer from a sense of frustration. The party which they dislike more than anything else politically is in power. For 13 years this view was held by Labour Party supporters. Now it is held by Conservative Party supporters. They expect the minority in the House of Commons to hammer home the views which they feel ought to be the majority view of the nation, and anything which takes away the power to do that makes them feel that their standard bearers are not doing their duty as they ought and that Parliament is not the forum of argument and discussion that it ought to be.

Fundamentally this comes down to the fact that many right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, after 13 years of power, are still very much Treasury-Bench minded. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, after two-and-a-half years in power, are becoming very Treasury-Bench minded. Many young and ambitious Members opposite are convinced that before the issue is put to the electorate again they will be on the Front Bench. They do not want the business of the House to be delayed. They want to make powerful speeches from the Dispatch Box, sweeping the Opposition aside, getting a big majority in the Division Lobbies and going home at 9.30 p.m.

That is what any party in power wants to do, but it is not the role of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman is the first to admit that the Executive has more power today than it had in the past and that every day which passes sees the executive with more power. But the House has the power of delay and examination and particularly the power to let people outside know what are the issues about which we are arguing.

This gives time for the Press, television and radio to report and for the various organisations affected by what we are discussing to put their arguments to Members. That inevitably means that if we as back benchers are doing the job for which we were returned we have to slow down the rate of legislation and, when something is controversial, give the people outside an opportunity of expressing their views. If the Leader of the House would say this clearly and unequivocally, it might remove a great deal of my objection.

Under this procedure, as I understand it, we are to get, through the usual channels, an agreed procedure. If the debate is not going very well the Patronage Secretary will say to the Leader of the House that something must be done about it.

Then, as I understand, the matter is sent to the Business Committee of the Panel of Chairmen plus some elected members. I will use the Finance Bill of 1965 as an example. What worries me is that, after the Bill has been on the Floor of the House for three days, at least half the Government's Amendments and two-thirds of the Opposition's Amendments had not been put down. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will intervene if I am wrong.

If the Leader of the House would give us a solemn assurance the Opposition would have the right to go back to the Business Committee and say that although they agreed to seven or eight days as a result of the Committee's recommendation to the House, since then the Government had brought in another 150 Amendments. If the House took only half a minute on half of them, as they were uncontroversial, that would mean l¼ hours, and if they took half an hour on each of the remainder which were controversial, and only a spokesman from each of the Front Benches spoke, this would add up to another day's business.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us his views on this, because it will influence the way I vote tonight. If the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that at that time the Opposition could go back to the Business Committee and say that because of the alteration in the circumstances, and because of the number of Amendments that the Committee was being asked to consider, they wanted extra time, and the Government of the day did not have the power to refuse, it would affect the way I will vote tonight.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch (Flint, West)

This proposal is a very bad one indeed. The basic business of this House is, and always has been, to control expenditure and Supply. We in this House have lost control of expenditure. The House had control of expenditure in Gladstone's day when it was £60 million and Government services were few. We have lost control now, but we have not lost control of taxation and it would be a terrible thing if we did.

When the right hon. Gentleman was introducing this proposal he referred to the Finance Bill as a bore which afflicts us in the summer. It is the most important thing that the House has to do. It is not a bore. For the people of this country taxation is not a bore; it is an agony. Our job is to try to get taxation as equitable and right as we possibly can, whether it bores or not. That is what we are here to do, not to talk about foreign affairs and things that we know nothing about. That is what we should be doing.

This proposal is said to be an experiment, but everyone knows that it is not—it is nonsense to pretend that it is. Then it is said that it is not really a Guillotine. [t is a Guillotine, in a more genteel form, but it is a Guillotine. I have no doubt whatever about that. The most discreditable of all the arguments brought forward in support is this is that if we do not agree to the Government's proposal, they might do something worse.

Let them do even their damndest. The country will realise this and the Government who bring in badly digested taxation ought to be punished for it. Everyone has mentioned the degrading examples of Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax. Treasury Ministers were begging us not to go too fast because they did not have their briefs ready. That is not a case for a Guillotine. A Minister who makes a bad speech ought to be punished for delaying the House. This is a really bad, evil, nonsensical business, and I hope that every honourable man will oppose it.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. John Nott (St. Ives)

This Motion is thoroughly regrettable. In the short time that I have been in this House I have formed the view that our procedure is in urgent need of reform. But this particular Motion seems to be reforming our procedure in quite the wrong direction. If, in the Finance Bill, there are certain Clauses about which hon. Members feel very strongly, surely it is essential that they are thoroughly debated here and thrashed out before discussion on them comes to an end.

If hon. Members feel that the Finance Bill takes too long in this House, the best reform would be to send part of it upstairs and let those hon. Members interested in particular Clauses debate them at length, and let the more controversial items, which affect the general policies relating to taxation be debated here on the Floor of the House. If this Motion is carried, Members who have not been in the House long, who feel strongly about particular Clauses, and who wish to speak upon them, will find themselves excluded, because members of the Privy Council and other senior Members will wish to speak. When the matters concerning them most deeply come along, they will not have an opportunity of raising their voice on points which could be of substantial interest to their constituents.

If there is to be a reform of the Finance Bill, the really vital, fundamental, difficult and more controversial aspects of it should be debated on the Floor of the House and the complicated, technical matters, about which certain Members have some knowledge, should be taken upstairs and debated at length, without any kind of Guillotine being imposed.

I feel that this Motion will detract from the prestige of the House, because certain Clauses will pass through without being given sufficient examination. On that basis, I shall certainly oppose it.

10.54 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman)

In reply to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), I would just say that his suggestion that we should split the Finance Bill, and have parts sent upstairs and parts taken on the Floor, has been considered ad nauseam by Select Committees and found to be impracticable. It has also been found to be impracticable by the Government. We must turn our attention to the proposals which have been tested and which, at least, are put forward with some experience.

We have had a good, long debate and I will try to reply to the points raised, and not repeat the main argument, which is fairly well-known.

In reply to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) I must say that I feel that he was being a little unjust when he said that it was the wrong time of day, or night, to debate this subject. We tried first from 3.30 p.m. to 10 p.m.; we tried it in the morning; and we are trying it now. I have enjoyed the debate at all times, and I would not like to tell the House which was the time when the speeches excelled and when they flagged. It has been an extremely good debate at all times of day and night, for what the hon. Gentleman rightly called an inexperienced Leader of the House.

The hon. Member rather pricked my conscience when he reminded me of my past. He is quite right when he says that on past Finance Bills I was one of the mass of sufferers rather than an active accomplice in torture such as himself. I was merely woken up and forced through the Lobby. All I can say is that in my earliest experiences I always came into the Chamber and found the "whiz kid" from Wirral speaking, and making his name as one of the torturers who, I think I am right in saying, tortured the late Hugh Dalton.

I am aware that many hon. Members speak with far greater authority than I—I see them all round me—on the Finance Bill. I simply remind the hon. Member that I am not speaking with my own authority. I am only recommending a proposal which has been put forward by a Select Committee unanimously and strongly, and supported by one member of his own Front Bench, although not by all members of his own Front Bench. I would not, of course, presume to put this proposal forward unless it had been something which had been tested in the Select Committee.

I now turn, if the House will forgive me, to one or two of the points which were mentioned in the last period of our debate on Wednesday morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) asked me about the meaning of "days" in my Motion. It means sittings. If my hon. Friend asks me how long a sitting lasts, this is one of the things which we have been discussing, but it seems to me to be implicit in any agreement of the kind which I have described that the parties to the agreement should have in mind a time at which, subject to a good deal of give and take such as has been described, they would hope to see the sitting's business completed: that is to say, nobody would have a rigid timetable.

We would always accept the need for the unpredictable, which has been asked for in such moving speeches, but one would have a broad agreement made both about the total time and the day for reporting back to the House, and also, although not being precise, about the time a: which we would hope to end each day's sitting. As many right hon. and hon. Members have told me, this broadly occurs already.

The question is, as I think, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) would say, whether I am seeking to gild what is already a lily. Do not we have an admirable system of voluntary agreements—this is being put to me—and is not everything so good on the Finance Bill that we cannot make it better? Those who are active accomplices in torture may think that it is perfect, but a number of right hon. and hon. Members who suffer under them wonder whether we could not introduce into our procedures a little more predictability without destroying altogether the charm for which the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) so movingly pleaded.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro)

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that minority interests often get an Amendment accepted on the Finance Bill only when they have repeated it year after year? How will they get the opportunity to do that under the right hon. Gentleman's proposal? It seems to me to be ruled out.

Mr. Crossman

I would have thought that that was true. Surely, however, the answer is that it is year after year, not hour after hour after midnight. That is the way one gets it done. What we are discussing—and I thank the House for a very good-tempered discussion — is whether we can improve our procedure and make it rather more predictable without destroying the unpredictability, and without, incidentally, basically shifting the balance of power with which we are dealing.

The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), in a characteristic speech, said that he thought that the whole of this meant more government and less discussion. He said that the Government like this. He said that the Opposition Front Bench likes it. Here, I think, he was exaggerating. Some like it, some do not.

The hon. Member said that all the Government back benchers like it, and, therefore, he would not agree to it.

There comes a point when, if three parts out of four like something very much, the question is how far the fourth part should prevent the three parts from trying the experiment. We are discussing whether this experiment should be tried. But I recognise that a large number of hon. Members on the Opposition back benches conscientiously tell me that this experiment will spoil the effect of the Finance Bill.

I want now to deal with what I thought was the most important new argument put this evening by the right hon. Member for Harrogate. I thought that he made a very charming speech, but also I thought that he put two points which needed an answer. It is true that in his speech he sounded almost as if he were reminiscing about his school days and those midnight feats that one had, which seem so wonderful 20 years later. This was a picture of events at 4 o'clock in the morning, and the charm and amusement of those occasions. However, one has to consider the matter not only in terms of charm, but also in terms of the way in which we conduct our business.

I come, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman's central point. I think I quote him correctly. He said, "One gets concessions by battering the Government, not by the quality of the debate." I reflected on this a great deal, for I think that this is a serious argument. It is a serious matter to say that the way the business is conducted here traditionally is to concentrate on quantity, and that the quality of what one says does not matter. But, on reflection, I wonder whether he is right.

I think that it is often said that the thing to do is to go on for hours and hours, and then the Government get tired, rather than make a short, completely convincing case which they cannot answer. I tend, as a rational human being, to believe that the second approach, rather than the first, is the way we want to conduct our business. But I can see how eager the Opposition are for the first method, where it does not matter what one says, so long as one says it for long enough.

The question I ask myself is whether, historically, this is actually true. Have Oppositions got their way more by this principle that "If we say a thing for long enough, and violently enough, and with little enough sense, in the end the Government will be on our side"? The quotation from the right hon. Gentleman's speech is "not the quality of the debate, but the battering." What does that mean? I would say in all seriousness that this is a curious view to be expressed by somebody who says that the Finance Bill is the most important part of our proceedings, where we have to defend the public against the Government, where serious work has to be done. Then we are told that it does not matter what is said, so long as it is said for long enough.

Mr. Ramsden

The right hon. Gentleman is not being quite fair. I was referring to the debate in which we have one speech from one side of the House followed by a speech from the other side, which is often described as a debate of greater quality than the debate in which speeches come continuously from one side. It was only in that sense that I said that that particular debate was not necessarily better than the other kind.

Mr. Crossman

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has explained. What he was surely referring to was the battering, one after another, saying things until the Government give way. There is an argument for this. I said that delaying progress by speech is one way of impressing a Government. But I wonder whether, during the Committee stage of a Finance Bill, one gets concessions best in this way. I wonder whether on Corporation Tax and the Capital Gains Tax —two controversial measures—what I would call the filibustering type of debates get more satisfaction than debates in which the speeches are short, terse and to the point. This Motion which I am moving makes the assumption that the quality of the debate matters as much as the battering.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin (Wanstead and Woodford) rose——

Mr. Crossman

I think that the House would like to come to a decision——

Sir E. Boyle

May I speak as one who has played a fairly active part in the debates on six Finance Bills? Surely it is only after protracted debate, some- times late at night, that it becomes apparent that the Treasury Minister is not able to satisfy the Committee? That often applies to both sides of the Committee, and not just to one side.

Mr. Crossman

I accept that there are times when battering and quality coincide. That is a very good debate when it happens. Therefore, this is a perfectly sound point to make.

If it were a matter of our cutting down enormously the total amount of time for the Finance Bill, that would be something else, but nobody is suggesting that. This unanimous proposal is not to reduce the time, but to see that the time is spent more sensibly, and to see if we can sometimes have not quite so many late-night sittings. These are the objects, and I emphasise this for the benefit of hon. Members who may not have been in the Chamber earlier in this discussion. I believe that the case for this has been made extremely clear.

The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) obviously wants me to answer——

Sir D. Glover

Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the amount of time to be allocated to the Finance Bill, will he answer my question, since, as I pointed out, his answer will affect the way in which I vote? What will happen, agreement having been reached with the Business Committee, if the Government then suddenly table an extra lot of Amendments?

Mr. Crossman

I will answer that question immediately, and my answer concerns the first Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. If the Government were to put down a great many Amendments, then, as I understand, that would be pointed out to the Chancellor or the Government through the usual channels.

I am assuming—and there seems to be some misunderstanding about the way in which our proceedings go on at present— that the usual channels would be the usual channels; that the Chancellor and the "shadow" Chancellor would converse about the debate. The only question is when they would start talking, and whether there should be this safeguard.

The answer, therefore, is that this would come up in those discussions, and it would be clearly put to the Government, if such a mass of additional Amendments were put down, that more time must be provided.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is, no doubt, relevant while a voluntary agreement was in operation. But can he clear up the question of what would happen if those Amendments were tabled after a time table had been fixed and after the debate and vote?

Mr. Crossman

I had the impression that it was more frequently on Report that Government amendments were put down. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think I am right. If the question is what would we do if there was a major change in the balance of the Bill owing to a mass of Government Amendments having been tabled, then the answer is that that would be discussed through the usual channels in the usual way. In other words, if the Opposition concluded that what had happened had clearly violated the agreement, then they would have their method of dealing with the matter if it was felt that a change had not been made by the Government in view of what they had done. I am, of course, assuming a rational relationship, as often exists, between the two sides.

Sir D. Glover

This is a fundamental point. I am not talking about the voluntary position. I am considering what might happen if the matter had gone to the Business Committee, the timetable had been debated for two hours under the right hon. Gentleman's proposal and then, after all that, the Government suddenly brought forward another 100 Amendments. What would happen then?

Mr. Crossman

The hon. Gentleman has not understood the proposal of the Select Committee, which the Government are recommending. The Government are not recommending that a timetable should be debated for two hours and put to the House. We are proposing that there should be agreement reached between both sides without a two-hour debate or use of the Standing Order, which would only be a safeguard or re- serve, and, as I explained, would only be brought into use then. The hon. Gentleman does not have the position right. There would not be a two-hour debate unless the relationship had broken down.

I hope that I may be allowed to turn to the Amendment. I was asked whether it was fair that a Minister of the Crown——

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd (Wirral)

I must ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on this topic of time. It would be almost inconceivable that, after three or four days of a Committee stage, 100 Amendments would suddenly be tabled. But in the event of such an extraordinary circumstance occurring, would not the right hon. Gentleman say that perhaps the whole matter of what should happen could be reconsidered?

Mr. Crossman

I am saying that if that happened, there would, of course, be consultations through the usual channels, and if 100 Amendments were put down and we had a rational relationship, then the time would be revised because there would not have been a time laid down. I emphasise that under the existing proposal there is not going to be a two-hour debate on a Guillotine. There will be no Guillotine, and no two-hour debate, unless the voluntary agreement breaks down.

The voluntary agreement would, of course, include consideration of the unusual situation in which the Government have put down 100 new Amendments, in which case the timetable would obviously be revised. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) made it perfectly clear; and that those who are not understanding it are being reluctant to understand what is being proposed.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Crossman

I come now to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. He asked why it was that a Minister of the Crown should be responsible to the House for notifying a breakdown in the agreement on the timetabling. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) was quite right when he asked whether it was not for Mr. Speaker to take the lead in such matter.

If the agreement arrived at between the two sides has broken down, it is for the aggrieved parties to take action, but I will give the right hon. Gentleman this absolute assurance. The Motion standing in my name provides only for a preliminary notification to Mr. Speaker, and this would not take place except after consultation through the usual channels. That is to say, the Minister would merely be reporting a fact that had been told to him by the two usual channels. He would, therefore, not be making a judgment, but reporting the judgment of the usual channels to Mr. Speaker.

The right hon. Gentleman's second Amendment proposes that we should have a whole day's debate on the proposal to remit the timetabling to the Business Committee——

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

On the subject of reporting to Mr. Speaker, this Motion provides that where … in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown "— the agreement is working ineffectively— a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown …". What we are objecting to is that it should be the opinion of a Minister of the Crown which should spark off, not a report to Mr. Speaker, but a Motion to apply a timetable.

Mr. Crossman

It would not be the opinion of the Minister; he would be merely reporting a breakdown which had been told to him by the usual channels.

The right hon. Gentleman's second Amendment proposes that we should have a six-hour debate, and not a two-hour debate. If we do that, we are back to where we were at the beginning.

We have had a long debate on a Motion which would put into practice experimentally for this Session a unanimous Report of the Select Committee. It is a compromise, as is frankly acknowledged, between the three views put forward. It would be a very great pity if this proposal, which was worked out by the Select Committee, were not to be tried out, because it is a genuine effort to reach, by agreement between both sides, an improvement in the timetabling of the Finance Bill. I therefore hope that the House will accept the Motion.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst (Shipley) rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am trying at the moment to protect the Amendments standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). Does the hon. Gentleman wish to catch my eye?

Mr. Hirst

I only want to ask a question, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make a speech. I should like to know whether the Motion means what it says. The words are … any general agreement of which Mr. Speaker has been informed "— Mr. Speaker is only informed— is, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, working ineffectively … That cannot tie up with what the Leader of the House said. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that it will be the opinion of a Minister of the Crown that counts, not that of Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker is controlled by a Minister of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman misled the House.

Mr. Crossman

I did not mislead the House. I gave the assurance, which I repeat, that this would not be the personal opinion of the Minister. The Minister in this case would be reporting a fact stated to him by the usual channels.

Mr. Speaker

Does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames move his Amendments?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move.

Mr. Speaker

Both of them? If so each will be moved separately.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I hope to move both of them, Mr. Speaker, as I understood you to give me permission to do.

I formally move the first of my Amendments, which was originally in line 7, but is now in line 8, to leave out "a Minister of the Crown" and to insert "Mr. Speaker."

Question put, That "a Minister of the Crown" stand part of the Question: —

The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 59.

Division No. 330.]	AYES	[11.14 p.m.
Albu, Austen	Forrester, John	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Fowler, Gerry	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Alldritt, Walter	Freeson, Reginald	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Anderson, Donald	Galpern, Sir Myer	Moyle, Roland
Ashley, Jack	Gardner, Tony	Murray, Albert
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Garrett, W. E.	Newens, Stan
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Gourlay, Harry	Ogden, Eric
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Gregory, Arnold	Oram, Albert E.
Barnes, Michael	Grey, Charles (Durham)	Orbach, Maurice
Barnett, Joel	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Orme, Stanley
Beaney, Alan	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Oswald, Thomas
Bence, Cyril	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Palmer, Arthur
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Pardoe, John
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Haseldine, Norman	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Bidwell, Sydney	Hazell, Bert	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Binns, John	Heffer, Eric S.	Pavitt, Laurence
Bishop, E. S.	Henig, Stanley	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Blackburn, F.	Hobden, Dennis (Brighton. K'town)	Pentland, Norman
Booth, Albert	Hooley, Frank	Perry, George H. (Nottingham, s.)
Boyden, James	Horner, John	Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Bradley, Tom	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Rees, Merlyn
Brooks, Edwin	Howie, W.	Reynolds, G. W.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Huckfield, L.	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Richard, Ivor
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Hunter, Adam	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Buchan, Norman	Hynd, John	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, SP'burn)	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Cant, R. B.	Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Coe, Denis	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Coleman, Donald	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Rose, Paul
Concannon, J. D.	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Conlan, Bernard	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Crawshaw, Richard	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Cronin, John	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)	Sheldon, Robert
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Lawson, George	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Leadbitter, Ted	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Dalyell, Tam	Ledger, Ron	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Lipton, Marcus	Slater, Joseph
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford)	Lomas, Kenneth	Spriggs, Leslie
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)	Lubbock, Eric	Swain, Thomas
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Swingler, Stephen
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	McBride, Neil	Thornton, Ernest
Delargy, Hugh	MacColl, James	Tinn, James
Dell, Edmund	MacDermot, Niall	Urwin, T. W.
Dempsey, James	Macdonald, A. H.	Varley, Eric G.
Dobson, Ray	McGuire, Michael	wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Doig, Peter	McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Dunnett, Jack	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Ward, Dame Irene
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Mackintosh, John P.	Watkins, David (Consett)
Eadie, Alex	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radno)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Wellbeloved, James
Ellis, John	MacPherson, Malcolm	Whitaker, Ben
English, Michael	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Whitlock, William
Ennals, David	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Ensor, David	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	Mallalleu, J. P. w.(Huddersfield, E.)	Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Faulds, Andrew	Manuel, Archie	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Finch, Harold	Mapp, Charles	Winnick, David
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Marquand, David	Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Mellish, Robert	Woof, Robert
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mendelson, J. J.	Yates, Victor
Foot, sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Mikardo, Ian
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Millan, Bruce	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Ford, Ben	Moonman, Eric	Mr. Ernest Armstrong and
		Mr. Joseph Harper.
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Brinton, Sir Tatton	Crowder, F. P.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Cunningham, Sir Knox
Bell, Ronald	Buck, Antony (Colchester)	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. & Fhm)	Carlisle, Mark	Drayson, G. B.
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel	Clark, Henry	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Cooke, Robert	Farr, John
Foster, Sir John	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Glbson-Watt, David	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Russell, Sir Ronald
Glover, Sir Douglas	Longden, Gilbert	Sharples, Richard
Gower, Raymond	Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Gresham Cooke, R.	Maddan, Martin	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Maude, Angus	Teeling, Sir William
Hill, J. E. B.	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Temple, John M.
Hirst, Geoffrey	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Nabarro, Sir Gerald	Tilney, John
Hordern, Peter	Nott, John	Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Hunt, John	Onslow, Cranley	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Kimball, Marcus	Peel, John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch	Mr. Boyd-Carpenter and
Kirk, Peter	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James	Mr. John Peyton.

Amendment proposed: In line 16, leave out 'two' and insert 'six'.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Question put, That 'two' stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 56.

Division No. 331.]	AYES	[11.35 p.m.
Albu, Austen	Faulds, Andrew	McNamara, J. Kevin
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Finch, Harold	MacPherson, Malcolm
Alfdritt, Walter	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Anderson, Donald	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Ashley, Jack	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Manuel, Archie
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Ford, Ben	Mapp, Charles
Barnes, Michael	Forrester, John	Marquand, David
Barnett, Joel	Fowler, Gerry	Meffish, Robert
Beaney, Alan	Freeson, Reginald	Mendelson, J. J.
Bence, Cyril	Galpern, Sir Myer	Mikardo, Ian
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Gardner, Tony	Millan, Bruce
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Garrett, W. E.	Moonman, Eric
Bidwell, Sydney	Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Binns, John	Gourlay, Harry	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Bishop, E. S.	Gregory, Arnold	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Blackburn, F.	Grey, Charles (Durham)	Moyle, Roland
Booth, Albert	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Murray, Albert
Boy den, James	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Newens, Stan
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Bradley, Tom	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Oakes, Gordon
Brooks, Edwin	Haseldine, Norman	Ogden, Eric
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Hazell, Bert	Oram, Albert E.
Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Heffer, Eric S.	Orbach, Maurice
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Henig, Stanley	Orme, Stanley
Buchan, Norman	Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)	Oswald, Thomas
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Hooley, Frank	Palmer, Arthur
Cant, R. B.	Horner, John	Pardoe, John
Coe, Denis	Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Parker, John Dagenham
Coleman, Donald	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Parker, John,(Dagenham)
		Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Concannon, J. D.	Howie, W.	Pavitt, Laurence
	Huckfield, L.
Conlan, Bernard	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Crawshaw, Richard	Hunter, Adam	Pentland, Norman
Cronin, John	Hynd, John	Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Rees, Merlyn
Dalyell, Tam	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Reynolds, G. W.
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford)	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Richard, Ivor
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Cental)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)	Lawson, George	Robertson, John (Paisley)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Leadbitter, Ted	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Defargy, Hugh	Ledger, Ron	Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Dell, Edmund	Lipton, Marcus	Rose, Paul
Dempsey, James	Lomas, Kenneth	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Dobson, Ray	Lubbock, Eric	Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Doig, Peter	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Dunnett, Jack	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Sheldon, Robert
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	McBride, Neil	Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Eadie, Alex	MacColl, James	Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	MacDermot, Niall	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Ellis, John	Macdonald, A. H.	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
English, Michael	McGuire, Michael	Slater, Joseph
Ennals, David	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Spriggs, Leslie
Ensor, David	Mackintosh, John P.	Swain, Thomas
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Swingler, Stephen
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)	Watkins, David (Consett)	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Thornton, Ernest	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)	Winnick, David
Tinn, James	Wellbeloved, James	Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Urwin, T. W.	Whitaker, Ben	Woof, Robert
Varley, Eric G.	Whitlock, William	Yates, Victor
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Ward, Dame Irene	Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)	Mr. Joseph Harper and
		Mr. Ernest Armstrong.
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Cower, Raymond	Nott, John
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Gresham Cooke, R.	Onslow, Cranley
Bell, Ronald	Heald, Rt. Hn. Lionel	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)	Hill, J. E. B.	Peel, John
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel	Hirst, Geoffrey	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Hordern, Peter	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Hunt, John	Russell, Sir Ronald
Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Sharples, Richard
Carlisle, Mark	Kimball, Marcus	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Clark, Henry	Kirk, Peter	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Cooke, Robert	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Teeling, Sir William
Crowder, F. P.	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Temple, John M.
Cunningham, Sir Knox	Longden, Gilbert	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Drayson, G. B.	Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain	Tilney, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Maddan, Martin	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Farr, John	Maude, Angus
Foster, Sir John	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. 8. L. C.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Mr. Boyd-Carpenter and
Glover, Sir Douglas	Nabarro, Sir Gerald	Mr. John Peyton.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 50.

Division No. 332.]	AYES	[11.38 p.m.
Albu, Austen	Dobson, Ray	Hynd, John
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Doig, Peter	Jackson, Peter (High Peak)
Alldritt, Walter	Dunnett, Jack	Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)
Anderson, Donald	Dunwoody, Mrs, Gwyneth (Exeter)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ashley, Jack	Eadie, Alex	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Ellis, John	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	English, Michael	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Barnes, Michael	Ennals, David	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Beaney, Alan	Ensor, David	Lawson, George
Bence, Cyril	Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	Leadbitter, Ted
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Faulds, Andrew	Lipton, Marcus
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Finch, Harold	Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Bidwell, Sydney	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Lomas, Kenneth
Binns, John	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Lubbock, Eric
Bishop, E. S.	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Blackburn, F.	Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Booth, Albert	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	McBride, Neil
Boyden, James	Ford, Ben	MacColl, James
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Forrester, John	MacDermot, Niall
Brooks, Edwin	Fowler, Gerry	Macdonald, A. H.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Freeson, Reginald	McGuire, Michael
Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Galpern, Sir Myer	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Brown, R. w. (shoreditch & F'bury)
Buchan, Norman	Gardner, Tony	Mackintosh, John P.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Cant, R. B.	Gregory, Arnold	McNamara, J. Kevin
Coe, Denis	Grey, Charles (Durham)	MacPherson, Malcolm
Coleman, Donald	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Concannon, J. D.	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Conlan, Bernard	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Crawshaw, Richard	Harper, Joseph	Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Cronin, John	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Manuel, Archie
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Haseldine, Norman	Mapp, Charles
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Hazell, Bert	Marquand, David
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Heffer, Eric S.	Mellish, Robert
Dalyell, Tam	Henig, Stanley	Mendelson, J. J.
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Hobden, Dennis (Brighton. K'town)	Mikardo, Ian
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Hooley, Frank	Millan, Bruce
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)	Horner, John	Moonman, Eric
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Howie, W.	Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Delargy, Hugh	Huckfield, L.	Murray, Albert
Dell, Edmund	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Newens, Stan
Dempsey, James	Hunter, Adam	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swlndon)
Oakes, Gordon	Robertson, John (Paisley)	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Ogden, Eric	Robinson, w. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Oram, Albert E.	Rodgers, William (Stockton)	Ward, Dame Irene
Orbach, Maurice	Rose, Paul	Watkins, David (Consett)
Orme, Stanley	Ross, Rt. Hn. William	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Oswald, Thomas	Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)	Wellbeloved, James
Palmer, Arthur	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)	Whitaker, Ben
Pardoe, John	Sheldon, Robert	Whitlock, William
Parker, John (Dagenham)	Shore, Peter (Stepney)	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N 'c'tle-u-Tyne)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Pavitt, Laurence	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)	Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred	Silverman, Julius (Aston)	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Pentland, Norman	Slater, Joseph	Winnick, David
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)	Spriggs, Leslie	Woodburn, Pt. Hn. A.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.	Swain, Thomas	Woof, Robert
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)	Swingler, Stephen	Yates, Victor
Rees, Merlyn	Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Reynolds, G. W.	Thornton, Ernest	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Rhodes, Geoffrey	Tinn, James	Mr. Charles R. Morris and
Richard, Ivor	Urwin, T. W.	Mr. Ernest Armstrong.
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfodshire, S.)	Varley, Eric G.
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Glover, Sir Douglas	Nott, John
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Gower, Raymond	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Bell, Ronald	Gresham Cooke, R.	Peel, John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)	Hill, J. E. B.	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel	Hirst, Geoffrey	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Hordern, Peter	Russell, Sir Ronald
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Hunt, John	Sharples, Richard
Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Clark, Henry	Kimball, Marcus	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Cooke, Robert	Kirk, Peter	Temple, John M.
Crowder, F. P.	Longden, Gilbert	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Cunningham, Sir Knox	Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain	Tilney, John
Drayson, G. B.	Maddan, Martin	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Maude, Angus
Farr, John	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Foster, Sir John	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Mr. Boyd-Carpenter and
Gibson-Watt, David	Nabarro, Sir Gerald	Mr. John Peyton.

Ordered, That, during the remainder of the Session, where, in respect of a bill for imposing, renewing, varying or repealing any charge upon the people, either—

1. (a) Mr. Speaker has been informed that no general agreement to allot a specified number of days or portions of days to the consideration of the Bill in Committee or on report has been reached, or
2. (b) any general agreement of which Mr. Speaker has been informed is, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, working ineffectively,

a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown that the Business Committee shall make recommendations to the House as to the number of days or portions of days to be allotted to the consideration of the bill in committee, on report or on third reading, and as to the time by which proceedings on any parts into which they may divide the bill shall be brought to a conclusion in committee or on report and any further recommendations which may in their opinion be necessary to ensure the bringing to a conclusion of the proceedings on the parts of the bill allotted to those days or portions of days; and the question on such a motion shall be put not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon; That for the purposes of this Order the Business Committee shall consist of the Chairmen's Panel together with not more than five other Members to be nominated by Mr. Speaker: That, when the Business Committee shall have reported the resolution or resolutions containing their recommendations to the House, the provisions of sub-paragraph (c) of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) shall apply to the proceedings on any motions for the consideration of such report and on the consideration of the said report.