TRANSPORT BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

HC Deb 14 March 1968 vol 760 cc1647-854

Mr. Speaker

Before I call the Leader of the House to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper, I should say that I have given much thought this morning to how we shall transact the business of the day. After the Question on the Motion has been proposed from the Chair, I thought that it would be as well to have a general debate on the allocation of time and the principle of this guillotine.

I thought that it would be helpful if I had my provisional Selection of Amendments posted in the "No" Lobby, as I would have done for an ordinary Bill, and I am grateful to the Table for its help in preparing this at short notice for the "No" Lobby. I do not propose to call any hon. Member to move any of the Amendments until some time has elapsed. I would have thought the House would not wish me to do so for several hours in order to allow adequate discussion on the main proposal. I thought that this might mean that I should call the first Amendment at about 8 o'clock.

In order to obtain freedom of discussion and amendment on this time-table Motion I shall follow the course taken on previous occasions by my predecssors and relax the rule about speaking twice to the extent that Members who may have spoken on the main Question will not thereby be debarred from moving Amendments. This relaxation does not however confer any additional rights to speak. It is limited to that small concession. Finally, when all the Amendments have been disposed of we shall return to discussion of the main Question, as amended, which will be the final Question to be decided by the House.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Walker—

Mr. Keith Stainton (Sudbury and Woodbridge)

On a point of Order—

Mr. Speaker

No one has a prescriptive right to raise a point of order before other right hon. Gentlemen. I called Mr. Peter Walker.

Mr. Peter Walker (Worcester)

Whilst appreciating the careful consideration that you have given to this, Mr. Speaker, and knowing the difficulties involved when there are a number of Amendments moved, I would ask you to reconsider your suggestions that 8 o'clock is the right time for ending the principal debate, because we have already lost one hour and 10 minutes of what would have been our normal time on other business and had we started the debate at 3.30 most hon. Gentlemen would have thought that to end the discussion at 6.45 would have been giving too short a time for such a major and important debate. We are anxious to see that the debate on the guillotine is not itself guillotined.

Mr. Speaker

I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said and I am thinking about the matter.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon, North)

Could I reinforce what has been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) on this basis. I assume that we are to debate two different matters, first, the general principle of the guillotine being applied to this Bill, and thereafter the details of the actual provisions put forward. It seems to me, in my respectful submission, that those are two separate matters to which the House will wish to address itself. Without going into the merits of the guillotine, it is generally agreed that we are discussing the merits of a Bill of some length and complexity.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman must come to his point of order. We have debates ahead in which he may tempt himself to join, but he cannot do so at this stage.

Mr. Thorpe

I therefore respectfully urge on the House the view that if the Amendments are called at approximately 8 o'clock this will give something like one hour and 40 minutes for speeches other than those by the two Front Bench spokesmen if, as I apprenhend, they will probably take 40 to 45 minutes each.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

They need not.

Mr. Thorpe

If they take less it will mean that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who wish to speak on the main merits of the guillotine will have an opportunity to do so. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully urge that whilst 8 o'clock may be the hour you have at present in mind, if you should later take the view that there is pressure for the debate on the Motion as a whole to go on longer, you would perhaps be flexible in reinforcing your Ruling.

Mr. Stainton

I would like to submit for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, that this Motion is out of order and should not be proceeded with on the grounds that Amendment 2087 to the Transport Bill which was tabled early this morning in Standing Committee F appeared subsequent to the Motion on the guillotine and that this Amendment 2087 so changes the character of the Transport Bill that this debate becomes highly irrelevant. Further, much of the time spent in Committee in debate on the Bill has been devoted to measures which now largely evaporate in the light of Amendment 2087 and, therefore, the Committee should be allowed to proceed with the Bill in the ordinary course and catch up with its time.

Mr. Speaker

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity. This is the most ingenious point of order I have heard in a guillotine debate for a long time, but the Motion is in order.

Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might I, with respect, obtain your guidance, which I feel might be for the assistance of the House. You have made it clear that movers of Amendments would be allowed, with leave of the House, to speak a second time after speaking on the particular Motion? It will be obvious to the House that the provisional selection of five Amendments which you have made are on various and different points. It will obviously be to the inconvenience of the House if each Member, once he has the Floor of the House, was to have to speak on each of these Amendments in his full speech before they had been moved. I would submit to you, therefore, that it might well be for the convenience of the House if, rather than having everybody speak on all the Amendments the moment they happen to catch your eye, you should allow some latitude so that people may speak directly only to the Amendment moved and might have your lenience in speaking a second time.

Mr. Speaker

First of all, if the hon. Gentleman is worried that when an Amendment is moved hon. Members will speak only to that Amendment, and that some might speak more than others, this is a self-denying ordinance that hon. Members must put on themselves if they wish others to speak in debates.

Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, did I understand you to say that if an hon. Gentleman has spoken on the main Question he would be called on one of the Amendmently only if he is the mover of the Amendment? If that is correct, could I draw your attention to the position—

Mr. Speaker

Once an Amendment is moved any hon. Member can speak to it.

Mr. W. F. Deedes (Ashford)

On a different point of order, may I draw attention to the fact that seven of the Amendments which appear on the Order Paper today appear for the first time, and are tabled by the Government themselves to a Motion which appeared on the Order Paper for the first time only yesterday. This is, of course, in order, but it is grossly inconvenient to the House and, I submit, comes rather close to infringement of the rules of the House for the reason that no opportunity now arises to amend any of the seven Amendments which have been tabled; in particular that on page 491 to which it might well be wished to put Amendments. I submit that this is a matter we have to bring to your attention.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman has already ruled on his own point of order that what is on the Paper is in order. It is unusual, but there is nothing out of order in the fact that the Government has amended its own Resolution.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

Further to that point of order, as my right hon. Friend has said, this Motion only appeared on the Order Paper yesterday and the Government seek substantially to amend it by Amendments which appeared on the Order Paper this morning. When the Motion appeared on the Order Paper yesterday, we endeavoured, after studying it carefully, to place Amendments on the Order Paper. At least two of those Amendments are to lines in the Motion which the Government now seek to leave out and to insert other lines. Nevertheless, those Amendments apply to the Government's amended Clause, and I would ask you whether, under those circumstances, you would accept manuscript Amendments which would be the same words as are on the Order Paper but would relate, in lines, to the new Clause which the Government seek to insert and, therefore, would be Amendment to the Amendments of the Leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker

I cannot undertake at this time to accept manuscript Amendments.

Sir John Eden (Bournemouth, West)

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Speaker is on his feet.

Mr. Edward Heath (Bexley)

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The question of accepting manuscript Amendments is a difficult one which I must decide at the proper time. Mr. Blackburn.

Mr. F. Blackburn (Stalybridge and Hyde)

Mr. Speaker, when you—[Interruption.] When you—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Debate must proceed in a regular manner. I have called the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) on a point of order.

Mr. Blackburn

Mr. Speaker, you are considering representations made to you about when we should move on to the Amendments. Will you at the same time take into consideration the views of those hon. Members who consider that long debates on guillotine Motions are a complete waste of time and that the sooner we get on with business the better?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that we might proceed now.

Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not my intention to follow the course of the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) and offer you advice. I want to follow what seemed to be the reasonable point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I see your difficulty in saying beforehand that you will definitely accept or reject manuscript amendments, but I hope that I can ask you respectfully to bear in mind the embarrassment and confusion into which the House has been put by the action of the Leader of the House who, having pushed this Motion at us only a couple of days ago, then has second thoughts, because none of his second thoughts is particularly welcome, and we have not even had a chance to put our considered views on paper.

Mr. Speaker

The House does not need my assurance that I shall bear in mind all the factors which have been mentioned and all those that have not been mentioned in addressing myself to the problems of today's debate.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While you have ruled quite clearly that the position is in order at the moment, it does not alter the fact that we have had a new Clause put to the Standing Committee which alters the character of the Bill, and that seven Amendments have been put on the Order Paper by the Government Front Bench. Would it not be fairer to the occupant of the Chair if the Leader of the House, recognising that fact, undertook to provide another day so that the matter can be examined properly?

Mr. Speaker

The mere repetition of a point of order does not establish it as a legitimate point of order. I have dealt with that point.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I may, I want to pursue with you a little further the general implications of what has happened. There is nothing now to stop a Government who find that their Motion on the Order Paper has been threatened by Amendments tabled by hon. Members, taking away the whole Motion on the morning of the debate and putting down another, thereby avoiding any debate on the Amendments which have been tabled. It would seem to me that this situation will arise again on other occasions when Motions are put down, and that it should be considered by the House and, with the greatest respect, by you whether it would not be a wise rule of the House to say that no Amendments can be accepted to a Government Motion, as has happened here. In the light of that possibility, would you not consider ruling that this debate should not take place until the matter has been considered?

Mr. Speaker

I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the answer to his last question. I am not prepared to rule that this debate should not take place. We have already dealt with the point about the unusualness of Amendments to a Government Motion appearing on the Order Paper on the day when the Motion

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Bill:—
Committee
5	1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 15th May.
Report and Third Reading
10	2.—(1) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be competed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the last of those days: and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
15	(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolutions as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
20	(3) The resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further report so made, whether or not within the time specified in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, and whether or not the resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
	(4) Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) shall apply to the Bill as if the words sub-paragraph (b) of' were omitted from that Order.
Procedure in Standing Committee
25	3.—(1) At a Sitting of the Standing Committee at which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the Proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
30	(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement of the reasons for the Motion from the Member who moves, and from any one Member who opposes, the Motion and shall then put the Question thereon.
Order of Proceedings in Committee
35	4. No Motion shall be made to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule but the resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee.
Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee
40	5. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
Dilatory motions
	6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
45	Extra time on allotted days
	7.—(1) If on an allotted day proceedings on the Bill are not entered upon by half-past three 3'clock—
50	(a) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be deferred for a period equal to that between half-past three o'clock and the time at which proceedings on the Bill are entered upon on that day; and day; and
55	(b) proceedings on the Bill shall not, save as is provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business) be interrupted at ten of the clock and may be resumed and proceeded with at or after that hour for such a period as aforesaid.

is to be debated. That point can be made in debate when we come to the actual Amendments.

4.55 p.m.

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

I beg to move,

60	(2) If a motion under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over until seven of the clock on an allotted day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day at any time after seven o'clock shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.
	(3) Any deferment under sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph shall be in addition to any deferment under sub-paragraph (1) thereof.
Private Business
65	8.—(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings.
70
	(2) No opposed private business shall be taken, on an allotted day on which a Motion under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over until seven of the clock, on that day.
75	Conclusion of Proceedings
80	9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—
	(a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
85	(b) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
	(c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
90	and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule the Chairman or Mr 90 Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
	(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
95	(3) If, at Seven o'clock on an allotted day, any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.
Supplemental orders
100	10.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion two hours after they have been commenced, and paragraphs 7(2) and 9 of this Order shall apply as if the Proceedings were Proceedings on the Bill on an allotted day.
105
110	(2) If any Motion moved by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order is under consideration at Seven o'clock on a day on which any private business has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock, not being a day to which paragraph 8(2) of this Order applies, the private business shall stand over and be considered when the Proceedings on the Motion have been concluded, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so standing over for a period equal to the time for which it so stands over.
Saving
115	11. Nothing in this Order or in a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee or the Business Committee shall—
	(a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
120	(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal
	12.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
125	(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation
130	13. In this Order—
	'allotted day' means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day;
	'the Bill' means the Transport Bill;
135	'Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
	'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House;
140	and where under this Order paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business) is applied to any Proceedings for any period, those Proceedings shall be deemed to be included in the proceedings specified in the said paragraph (1) for that period.

It might be convenient if I refer for a few moments to the Government Amendments which came on the Order Paper today. They are all of what I believe is called a concessionary character, in the sense that, having read some of the Opposition Amendments, they are designed to meet objections of the Oppotion that they felt that they were being starved of adequate discussion in the time-table allotted to the Report stage. All of them are of that character.

If the House had preferred, I would have put down an amended Motion. I discussed it through the usual channels, and I gathered that it was more to the satisfaction of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite if the Government Amendments were put down alongside their Amendments, so that the House could judge and decide between the two sets of proposals for dealing with the lengthening of the time available for the Report stage.

Mr. Peter Walker

rose—

Mr. Crossman

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will permit me to conclude this part of my remarks before he criticises. I was explaining why we had put down the Government Amendments. It is a matter which we shall discuss when the Amendments are called. These Amendments are to be discussed at the same time as the Amendment put down by the hon. Gentleman relative to the same topic.

All that we shall do is to put those forward, and it would be convenient to say that I accept the view that, in this case, more time should be allocated than in the traditional time-table. The original Motion was in the traditional form for a time-table Motion. Without any change, the Report stage is not exempted business. I have now suggested that, instead of having more days for the Report stage, we should take more time and allocate five and a half hours each day—a certain amount after 10 o'clock and a certain amount in the mornings. I calculate that that will provide the Opposition with the equivalent of more than two days in a way which is convenient to the House.

Whether it is right or wrong, I believe that we can discuss these proposals of ours alongside the hon. Gentleman's proposal, and come to a decision on it when we reach the second group of Amendments.

Mr. Peter Walker

The House finds itself in this difficulty because, having announced the guillotine Motion last Thursday and having obviously considered it before then the Government were unable to put down their Motion on the Order Paper before Tuesday. That is the reason why the House is in this impossible position of not being able to comment or table Amendments.

Mr. Crossman

What we did was done in order to meet objections from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am sorry if they have been caused inconvenience. When we come to discuss these matters, I hope that they will find themselves able to commend what we have suggested as a way of proceeding.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East)

I want to draw attention to the Government's reference in later Amendments to five-and-a-half hours. In the form of procedure which the right hon. Gentleman is proposing, that period is not subject to amendment. Mr. Speaker has said that this is unusual. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there is any precedent known to him for the course that he is now suggesting?

Mr. Crossman

The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that that question should have been directed to the Chair and not to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] We have put this down in this form, and it is in order. I suggest that we should consider what is our main task, and that is to decide whether or not to time-table the Bill and, if so, how.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the invitation of the Leader of the House, could we put to the Chair the question raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith)? Is there any precedent for this Amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

It is not for the Chair to rule whether—[Laughter.]

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House said that it is not a point for him. The Chair says it is not a point for the Chair. To whom do we put that point?

Mr. Crossman

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I imagine that it is open to any hon. Member to search the precedents of this House.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, did you hear the right hon. Gentleman say that all this kerfuffle which has gone on the Order Paper had been through the usual channels? Did he not say that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] If he said that, I would like an explanation, because my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) did not appear to know about it. I want to know what the usual channels were doing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It is not within the province of the Chair to explain what the usual channels were doing.

Dame Irene Ward

Would it not be in order for the usual channels to give their explanation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Peter Bessell (Bodmin)

On a point of order. I understood the Leader of the House to say that there had been agreement that there should not be a new Motion put down, but that there should be Amendments tabled by the right hon. Gentleman and that this had been agreed through the usual channels. Nothing has reached me through the usual channels on this matter. Is it in order for this to happen?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not a point of order. That is a point which can emerge during the debate.

Mr. Crossman

I would like to relieve the anxieties of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who I know would not like that kind of thing to happen. It did not happen. I said that I had, through the usual channels, asked whether it would be acceptable to put down a complete redraft of the Motion. When I had a clear indication that it would not, I took my own decision. [Interruption.] We put down our Amendments so that they could be discussed side by side. If the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen wish to have a well-organised time-table, or to improve it, as they are seeking by their Amendments—[Interruption.] The Opposition, in a long series of Amendments, are not opposing in principle the guillotine, but seeking to improve the timetable. All I suggested was that it was reasonable to consider these two alternative methods of dealing with the Report stage when we come—[Interruption.] It does not seem that we shall have much time for discussion of principles if we cannot get over this discussion on how to conduct our business on the time-table.

With the consent of the House, I should like to come to what I was asked, namely, to explain why we are being compelled to introduce a compulsory time-table for the Transport Bill.

Mr. Ridley

rose—

Mr. Crossman

It will take longer if I have to say everything twice. I have been asked to explain why we have decided that the Bill should be reported back to the House on 15th May.

Before coming to my positive case on the time-tabling of the Bill, I will deal with the arguments of the hon. Member for Worcester. They come down to three main points. First, he contends that this is not a single Bill. He does not regard it as a single Bill but as a—[Interruption.] I am trying to summarise in my simple language what he says in more complicated language. He regards this as a portmanteau Measure. He argues that instead of being presented to the House as one Bill this Session it should have come Session by Session as a long series of Bills. The Leader of the Opposition, who is an expert, having once been the Patronage Secretary, in guillotines, said that it should not have come to the House. We are not discussing that. We are discussing, it having come, in what form it should be reported back to the House. I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition takes us back to that fractious background.

The first point is: is this a Measure which should have been brought forward as a lone series of independent Bills, or is it a closely integrated single Bill? This is the first issue which we have to decide in the first Session of our debate.

We all know that the hon. Member for Worcester does his homework. Both in public and private discussion he has presented to the Minister and the Minister of State a whole series of proposals for excising those sections from the Transport Bill which, in his view, could be postponed to a later Session. Therefore, we are able to judge objectively between his view of what the Bill is or should be and our Bill, and decide which we want. If we want ours, I can tell him that we have to have a time-table, whereas if he were to get what he wanted, not to my great surprise, he would not need a time-table if he had a majority. His case is that we only have to accept these excisions, and then the truncated body of the Bill could be shoved through the legislative processing machine without further trimming of members from it by the guillotine. What shape the body would be in at the end of this process, and how many limbs would survive is another question.

I have taken a lot of trouble to study his proposals for excisions. There is a whole series. To put the matter rather indelicately, I contend that they would not only dismember the Bill, they would emasculate it, to use only a mild physical analogy. They would destroy its organic unity and defeat the objective for which the Minister has fought so hard—the provision of a complete legislative framework within which the Government can construct a fully integrated transport system.

The Bill contains—and I think the Minister concedes—a few genuinely miscellaneous items whose removal would not significantly alter the time-table. But with these small exceptions it is the closely integrated product of the most thorough review of the whole range of transport policy ever presented to Parliament. Except for the docks reorganisation, on which the Minister hopes to legislate next Session, the Bill gives effect to the whole of the new integrated transport policy as reported to Parliament in her five notable White Papers.

What about the truncations, the excisions? I gather that the hon. Member for Worcester proposes, for example, that the sections of the Bill relating to quantity licencing and waterways can be removed and so improve the quality of the Bill. But he knows—

Mr. Peter Walker

The right hon. Gentleman is monstrously misquoting my whole case. He knows full well, first, concerning the inland waterways section, which is seemingly so important to this policy, that that could have gone to another Committee this Session perfectly reasonably and sensibly and had its own Second Reading.

Concerning quantity licensing, the right hon. Gentleman knows full well that my case was that the Minister herself is on record as saying—[Interruption.] If the Leader of the House is going monstrously to misquote me he must expect interruptions. On quantity licensing—

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, how long is the hon. Gentleman to be permitted to go on without exhausting his right to speak altogether? [HON. MEMBERS: "Quiet."] Is it not necessary—[Interruption.] Is it not necessary that Front Bench speakers opposite must learn to abide by the rules of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It is for the Chair to decide in every case whether the length of an interruption is reasonable or unreasonable and to interrupt at the point when it becomes unreasonably long.

Mr. Peter Walker

The whole argument on quantity licensing was that the Minister having said she did not want to use the provisions of that section for two years, we could do that rather than guillotine the Bill.

Mr. Crossman

If I dare say so, I recommend the hon. Gentleman to make his own speech later. These are all points that he can make to which my right hon. Friend will reply.

Taking his curious argument about the waterways section of the Bill, he said that it would be simple to have that taken before a separate Committee and have a separate Second Reading. One can divide all Bills into five or six sections, each with its own Second Reading, but this would not be the way for any Government to get its business through in a reasonable time. I hope that the House is beginning to appreciate the reasons which have led us to feel that a timetable is necessary to control the exuberance of rhetoric. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to present his views on the portmanteau nature of the Bill, and no doubt the Minister will reply.

In my view, having looked at the Bill, the answer is simple. It is a closely integrated whole. It is the Bill which we announced in the Queen's Speech, which we presented early in December, and which we are determined to obtain this Session. The more the hon. Gentleman says that, in order to get it through, the Bill must be truncated, the more he strengthens the case for our saying that we require a time-table.

On this issue I should like the hon. Gentleman to hear the words of one of my predecessors moving the guillotine Motion on another Transport Bill. The right hon. Gentleman concerned is unable to be here. He has an important domestic arrangement, which I do not begrudge him, but I wish that he were here, because he is an unrivalled expert on the reasons for guillotining transport Bills. I am, of course, referring to the right hon. Member for Enfleld, West (Mr. Ian Macleod).

On the last Transport Bill guillotine Motion the right hon. Gentleman said: The fundamental fact which we, as the House of Commons, have to consider is that with our procedures, which have grown up over so many years, any Bill…will…if it is sufficiently disliked by the Opposition, result in a situation in which the Government must ask for allocation of time powers or drop the Bill…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 432.] The right hon. Gentleman understood the position. I do not think there was a censure Motion against him that time, but it did not make much difference. He said that there comes a point in any transport Bill when the Government must ask for the allocation of a time-table. The idea of compulsion entered my head only after I read the Motion in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, when he said that one is driven to ask for the allocation of time powers or to drop the Bill.

It is clear what has been happening in Committee. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been doing their duty by creating a situation in which they hope we will take the alternative of dropping the Bill, but I have a suspicion that they are not unduly surprised to find that when faced with this alternative we decided not to drop the Bill, but were compelled to ask for an allocation of time powers. My first contention to hon. Gentlemen opposite is that this is no new or novel thing. We are doing in this Bill what we have been driven to do by a consistently thorough and efficient Opposition who knew what they were doing, and are not surprised by what we are doing.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Has the right hon. Gentleman ever, in his experience in the House, had a Bill guillotined—which is a proper procedure—when there has been a complete absence of any filibustering? The right hon. Gentleman is not a member of the Committee, nor am I but I have examined its proceedings. I find that no more than 15 minutes have been spent per Amendment, and there can be no suggestion of being driven to introduce the guillotine on the basis of the Committee's performance.

Mr. Crossman

I suggest that the word "filibuster" is a pejorative word. It is a nasty word. I always regard as serious a sustained discussion from this side of the House what I am in danger of dismissing as filibustering when it comes from the other side. This is the difficulty in which we find ourselves when there are long speeches. We tend to treat them in a biased and prejudiced way, so I hope that in this debate I shall not accuse even the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) of filibustering in his one thousand and one nights of Arabian entertainment which he has done on this Bill so far.

I want to mention a peculiar character of transport legislation. I do not think it is an accident that each of the four major Transport Bills presented to Parliament since the war has aroused such passionate and well-fought opposition, twice from a Labour Opposition, and now for the second time from a Conservative Opposition, that the Government have been compelled to impose a time-table as the only alternative to losing a Measure which formed an essential part of their policy. Indeed, this has been so not only since the war. I go back to Herbert Morrison's Transport Act of 1930. Transport is always a bone of contention between the parties, and it is also an issue which provokes extra-Parliamentary activity because it affects wealthy vested interests and powerful pressure groups.

If the hon. Member for Worcester makes the charge that the first postwar Labour Government's Transport Act of 1947 was, and this Transport Act in 1968 is, far more important than their two Tory counterparts, much more far-reaching in extent, and far more innovating in purpose I shall not deny it. The Tory Measures were denationalising, disintegrating, negative Measures. Ours are constructive. They have aroused fierce opposition because they are bold Measures of radical reform which challenge vested interests of the status quo, and insist on submitting them to public control. I was not surprised to find myself called on to speak to this Motion in due course. The only question was when.

Mr. Peyton

What the right hon. Gentleman has been saying are things which only he would have the audacity to express. As he was so well forewarned that a Transport Bill would come up against fairly heavy criticism from the Opposition, why in the name of conscience did not he take the trouble to put the Bill down earlier so that there would be adequate time for it?

Mr. Crossman

If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself in patience, I shall come to that charge. I have gone through and listed the points that he wanted me to answer. In my speech I should like to answer them in my order, and not his.

It remains true that whenever the Government—of the Right or Left—promote a major transport Bill they find themselves faced with the choice which confronted the right hon. Member for Enfield, West in 1962, that of either asking for the allocation of time, or dropping the Bill.

Now I turn to the second contention relating to time. I gather that for many weeks now the hon. Member for Worcester has contended that a time-table Motion would be unnecessary if only the Government were content to see the Bill come back to the House at the end of June. We shall discuss this on a later Amendment. This strikes me as distinctly optimistic, but even if it were a realistic assessment of the pace achievable in Committee, it is an unrealistic assessment of the time required both for the concluding stages in this House, and for the necessary procedures in another place. It is our contention, and I have seen nothing to contradict it, that to get the Bill through all its stages in this Session it must be reported here in mid-May, and since the Opposition will not collaborate in a voluntary time-table for concluding the Committee stage by 15th May, this Motion has become inevitable.

I have heard it suggested that even so we have been unduly impatient in bringing this Motion forward, and that if we had been reasonable people, the Minister of Transport and I would have let things go on for a week or two longer Upstairs before introducing the timetable. To this I would say that there is nothing more frustrating to good debate, and more infuriating to serious Opposition, than a time-table which jerks a Committee which has become acclimatised to a lazy slow-motion Clause by Clause consideration—I am not referring to this Committee—and precipitates it into a breakneck rush over the rest of the Bill.

To show what I mean, I should like to compare what we are doing with this Bill, with what the Conservatives did in 1962. When they were in office the Bill was allowed to crawl along day by day at little more than the speed of one Clause every two weeks. That was the pace which was achieved in the period before the guillotine. And then, suddenly, when the guillotine was introduced, the process was accelerated by approaching 1,000 per cent. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West decided to accelerate the process from a slow crawl to a breakneck Gadarene drive.

We have timed ourselves better and I calculate that if the time-table is successful the rate will have to accelerate somewhat—the progress on this Bill has been much better, it is true, but it is a longer Bill—but we shall have to ask for only a three-fold increase in pace instead of the ten-fold increase which the Tories sought. I seriously suggest that the Opposition will get a better debate, a better spaced debate, which is divided up and considers each part of the Bill more adequately, under this planned compulsory time-table.

Under our time-table, when the Bill is finally reported, as it of course will be, more time will have been devoted to it in Committee than to any other Bill. I reckon, in the history of the British Parliament—twice as long as the Conservatives gave for the 1962 Transport Act. It is, in fact, the equivalent of 76 ordinary sittings of two and a half hours each. Therefore, those who are concerned, not to prevent the Bill being passed, but to ensure that it has adequate time, will have a hard job to convince me, when I can show how much time we shall give and how fairly and reasonably that time will be spaced, by introducing a timetable now, between the various parts of the Bill—

Mr. James Dance (Bromsgrove)

But will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this is not one Bill but ten in one, which is why it is taking all this time?

Mr. Crossman

I remember from my time in Opposition that when one is in Opposition and dislikes a Bill one of the things which one always feels about what the other side regard as a big, important, statesmanlike Measure is that it is a package of terrible things, and one tries to chop it up and destroy it bit by bit. That is why we need the time-table, but we are getting slightly nearer agreement about why the time-table is necessary.

It is always a temptation for the mover of a Motion such as this to dilate on precedents, and I will quote the right hon. Member for Enfield, West only once more on this subject. He was speaking not on the Transport Bill but on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill. He did a whole series of guillotines. We all remember the 15 Bills guillotined by the Tories in their 13 years. And there were several in one day: they did them in bunches, not singly, as we do.

In his most robust form, the right hon. Gentleman said: …the clearest and most robust declaration of what we are all aware to be one of the facts of Parliamentary life was made by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) during the last debate on an allocation of time Motion. This is what the right hon. Gentleman said: 'So long as I sit in this House and when my party is in power, I shall support the efforts of the Government to get their business. But if the party opposite is in power I shall oppose the Government getting their business, and I hope that no one will have any illusions on that score.'… That is a splendid, almost a classical exposition of the situation, and that, after all, is what this debate is about."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January 1962; Vol. 652, c. 417.] That was an unusual piece of candour, which I might have been accused of showing myself, and which I am exercising the greatest care in avoiding this afternoon. It is one of those pieces of candour which does not really describe the situation—

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Is the right hon. Gentleman not being candid, then?

Mr. Crossman

No, I said that it did not describe the situation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to pay attention just to this point. When we are discussing guillotines and time-tabling, we should face—the Leader of the House especially must face—the fact that, if we ask for a constriction of time and a limitation of debate, we must justify it to ourselves. It is not right to take the attitude, "Whenever I am in Government I will rail-road my policy through and when I am in Opposition, I will use every means of stopping Government policy", because Parliament does not work that way. We on our side must be careful when we ask for a time-table that we have taken trouble and weighed all the considerations and arranged a fair time-table. We must be fair.

All I would add is that there is an equally serious danger to the danger of Governments being autocratic, and that is a danger for which Oppositions are responsible—their power to prevent good Government and decision by frustration and delay. In the kind of decision which we are making today, the real test is whether this action achieves a fair balance between the legitimate insistence of Government on concluding the discussion of a vital Measure in good time for it to go to the other place for discussion, and the legitimate demand of the House that the Bill should be adequately discussed.

I have always believed that a voluntary time-table, if possible, is not the enemy of good discussion, but an essential precondition of it. I was reinforced in this view by the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure which strongly recommended the use of voluntary timetables. l t was with this sensible concept in mind that the Minister tried hard to reach agreement with the hon. Member for Worcester. In view of the size of the Bill, she offered, right from the start, that the Committee should meet three times a week, including long sittings on Wednesday. She accepted, too, two all-night sittings to give extra time to discussion of Opposition Amendments. She made it clear that, if agreement could be reached on a time-table, she would allocate time in the total to take into account the wishes of the Opposition.

But all in vain. The hon. Member for Worcester asked for—how much? Not everybody has seen this figure. He asked for 455 hours in Committee. That is 182 normal sittings, and the Bill would have taken two years in Committee. Hon. Members opposite all nod their heads. That is what they wanted. When my right hon. Friend said that she wanted to work out with the hon. Member a sensible voluntary time-table, that was the rumbustious reply which she got—

Mr. Peter Walker

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the time for which I asked was less per Clause than the present Government gave on the Iron and Steel Bill, without guillotining it?

Mr. Crossman

Of course, the hon. Gentleman will be able to make out reasons for his action and make it sound less insane when he makes his own speech. I am simply pointing out that, when the hon. Gentleman was offered a voluntary time-table and said that he wanted two years in Committee, this suggestion was nothing short of frivolous and cannot be taken seriously by a Government such as ourselves.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

is my right hon. Friend aware that on one of the Transport Bills which he did not mention our party agreed to a voluntary time-table and that that was the best conducted debate ever on a Bill?

Mr. Crossman

I would add that it was not one of the really contentious Transport Bills. We are dealing with one which is contentious because someone will be hurt and someone will benefit by it. These are the contentious ones.

The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said that we should not have brought a Bill of this size to Committee as late as mid-January, and that things would have been different if the Bill had been brought to the House for its Second Reading—

Mr. Peyton

I did not say that. The right hon. Gentleman should be a little more tidy about his quotations. This cynical sloppiness with which he uses other people's words and twists them in a serpentine way which comes natural only to himself is intolerable.

Mr. Crossman

One of my difficulties is that I have to try to summarise in precise form the passionate orations of the hon. Gentleman. I thought that it was fair to say that he had complained that we produced the Bill to the Committee too late. Is that right?

Mr. Peyton

Yes.

Mr. Crossman

Right. In mid-January? Or was his complaint that it should have been in December?

Mr. Peyton

I am so sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is slow to take the point, though he may have a note to deal with this later in his speech. The point is—let us labour it: there is plenty of time—that if the Leader of the House, as he says, was forewarned of trouble in getting the Bill through, one is slightly curious to know why he did not take the elementary precaution of getting started with it as soon as possible.

Mr. Crossman

I like questions put in that moderate and modest way, since I can reply to them moderately and modestly. If that is the question, why we decided to bring it forward in January, my right hon. Friend will go into it in greater detail, but I am told—I know this as a Member of the Cabinet—that there were many matters on which we had to have expert and precise consultation, and in our view it was better to spend time on consultation and get the Bill in January rather than to have it less well prepared in December.

Since great play has been made with the question of the Bill having been brought in late, it is interesting to note that the longest time we possibly could have had in Committee with this Measure would have been an extra two weeks before Christmas, which represents four sittings. When I compare that with the 455 hours, or two years, being sought, those two weeks would have made very little difference indeed.

Mr. Peter Walker

I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would stop constantly suggesting that I asked for two years in Committee. I did no such thing. I stated in a letter to the right hon. Lady the Minister that we would be willing to sit the hours necessary to finish the 455 hours for which I had asked by the end of June. This statement about sitting for two years in Committee is, therefore, a figment of the right hon. Gentleman's imagination, and I trust that he will stop talking about two years.

Mr. Crossman

I am glad to accept that. This is something that I did not know. I said that if we had 455 hours of normal Committee work, week by week, that would take two years. If I did not say that, that is what I meant and I correct what I did say. I am glad to hear that what the hon. Gentleman was proposing was 455 hours in Committee, to be completed in June. I will get our statisticians to work and let hon. Members know how that would have worked out within this reductio ad absurdum portmanteau.

Mr. Bessell

Has a Bill of this size been subject to a guillotine Motion in recent history?

Mr. Crossman

I must be careful in answering questions of that sort off the cuff.

Mr. Michael Heseltine (Tavistock)

On a point of order. Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he was not told by the Minister of Transport—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The point which the hon. Gentleman is raising is obviously not a point of order.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Mr. Heseltine.

Mr. Heseltine

I trust that you will allow me to put my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood the Leader of the House to say that he was not told by the Minister of Transport about the offer from the shadow Minister for the Committee to sit the requisite number of hours. The right hon. Gentleman should have been in possession of this information before deciding to deal with this matter by way of the guillotine.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

As I said, that is not a point of order, but a question that may be ventilated during the debate.

Sir Gerald Nabarro (Worcestershire, South)

Young eagles.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Further to my hon. Friend's point of order. My hon. Friend referred to a letter which had been sent to the Minister. When a document is mentioned in debate, ought not that document to be on the Table?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman was not referring to an official document but to correspondence. These matters may be ventilated during the debate. They are not points of order.

Mr. Crossman

I am grateful for those interventions because they have enabled me to find the relevant document. I said that the presentation of the case now by the hon. Member for Worcester was somewhat different from the one I had heard from my right hon. Friend. I am interested in the attractive way in which he has presented his proposition. I gather that he is maintaining that he made the proposition that the Opposition would require 50 hours per week in Committee until mid-June. I would have thought that 50 hours was overdoing it a bit, to say the least. We believe that, instead of 50 hours per week untill June, we should have a sensibly timetabled Committee finishing on 15th May.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

When was the letter written?

Mr. Crossman

I have a mass of correspondence before me. I suggest that these are all points which can be raised in the debate. At that time hon. Gentlemen opposite will be able to make their remarks effectively and I hope that I may now continue without being constantly interrupted.

These are the hard facts: the Bill was introduced at the earliest possible moment in the Session and, as I pointed out, the two weeks which could have been provided would have made negligible difference compared with the major demands on time that are being made. In considering the present situation, in spite of the extra time which my right hon. Friend has been prepared to allow, the Bill is far behind schedule. About 2,000 Amendments have been tabled by hon. Gentlemen opposite and, as far as I know, this is a record. I understand that the hon. Member for Bodmin put down 1,000 Amendments on his own.

Mr. Bessell

indicated dissent—

Mr. Crossman

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, since I understand that the number of Amendments tabled by him now totals 1,001.

Mr. Bessell

On a point of order. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to quote figures, surely it is vital that he quotes accurate figures. The number is not 1,001 but 1,047.

Mr. Crossman

I am glad to write that correction on the tablets of my heart. I will remember that as being the only record achieved by the Liberal Party in this Parliament.

Proceedings can be dragged out just as much by putting down and discussing hoards of Amendments as by speaking at great length to a small number of them. As the House knows, we must complete the Committee stage by mid-May if we are to finish the Bill this Session. Three sittings a week are as much as it is sensible to expect hon. Members to attend, and no hon. Member wants constant all-night sittings. After 23 sittings, the Committee is still discussing Clause 45, and that is why we have introduced this Motion.

My right hon. Friend will be dealing later with many of the detailed points. I conclude by recognising something frankly and with admiration, although I may have this quoted against me by the next Leader of the House when he is dealing with a guillotine Motion. The strange fact when reading speeches made by one's predecessors is that there is virtually no difference between them, from whichever side of the House those speeches are made. This is what makes this proceeding sometimes viewed with cynicism by people outside.

As I was saying, I recognise frankly, and with a certain reluctant admiration, the formidable scale of the publicity campaign which has been organised inside and outside the House against the Transport Bill. Indeed, our opponents have mounted this colossal propaganda offensive with such skill, such huge financial backing and such persistence—

Sir G. Nabarro

Before the right hon. Gentleman completes his peroration, is he aware that he said earlier that people were going to get hurt by the Bill? As the overwhelming majority of taxpayers are going to be grievously hurt, surely they have every right to proclaim their indignation about the right hon. Gentleman's horrible Parliamentary methods.

Mr. Crossman

That does not have much to do with the point I was discusing. I was talking about the formidable propaganda offensive which has been launched inside and outside the House by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have conducted it with such persistence that they have won the reward which Governments in the last resort always concede to a really determined Opposition. That reward is the relaxation of tension by a well-earned time-table Motion.

Another quotation may be of interest to the House. This one is not from a speech made by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West but from a speech made by an even more intellectual member of the Tory Party, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) at the time of the introduction of a guillotine Motion. He said: I believe that the House equally recognises"— this may not be suitable for his present standing that when such a situation arises, it is the duty of the Government…not inconsistent with Parliamentary democracy, to follow the precedents and apply the procedure of the guillotine."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1961; Vol. 636, c. 168.] Those words were used by the right hon. Gentleman when he was paying tribute to the Labour opposition to the National Health Service Bill in 1961, before he rewarded their efforts with a time-table Motion. I believe that, for the Transport Bill, the moment has come to treat a determined, gallant Conservative Opposition in the same way. I pay my tribute to them and I offer the same reward.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker (Worcester)

I thank the Leader of the House for the last general tributes, if not for the reward. His speech contained some appropriate quotations, which we can all produce, from timetable debates. Naturally the right hon. Gentleman had to endeavour to persuade the House that the necessity for guillotining this Bill was similar to the necessity for guillotining past Bills. In the manner in which he has done it and the complete lack of fundamental argument behind his case, in my view the right hon. Gentleman has completely and utterly degraded the position of Leader of the House of Commons.

I say that, first, because his speech was full of thoroughly irresponsible misquotations. We have become used to that, as was pointed out. Secondly, the facts on which he based it were basically wrong. Thirdly, the whole basis of the argument does not bear examination. The right hon. Gentleman tried to deal, first—he did so completely inadequately—with the problem of the magnitude of the Bill.

We are discussing the guillotining of a major Bill which has no friends at all amongst those responsible for the British economy. On the very day that we debate this the front page of the Financial Times, a newspaper which is often quoted by hon. Members opposite because of the position and attitudes it adopts to the economic situation, is taken up with a major headline as to the problems facing sterling at present.

Page 2 of today's Financial Times carries the heading: Transport Bill attacked by food manufacturers. There is an official statement from them saying how much they consider that the Bill will increase the price of food. Page 3 tells us: Transport Bill would increase building costs. There is a statement by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers saying how much the Bill will adversely affect the building industry. Page 14 sets out a statement by nine economists who urge, in the interests of the country, that the Bill should be postponed. Despite the economic situation, the Government are not postponing the Bill today for the very valid reasons which they could employ. They are endeavouring to ensure that it is not properly discussed in Parliament but is steam rollered through.

I want to look at the major reasons why we consider that the timetable is completely unjustified. First, the Bill is too large, in the view of many observers. The main editorial of The Times of 8th March, commenting upon the Government's decision to guillotine the Bill, said: Good or bad, there is no disputing that this is a quite exceptionally long Bill. It contains 169 Clauses and 18 Schedules, and runs to 260 pages…It was not sent to Committee until towards the end of January, and the Minister wants it out of Committee by mid-May so as to be sure of getting it through the Lords. The Opposition are justified in complaining about all this. That view will be shared by anybody who is reasonably aware of the normal happenings in the House of Commons.

There is no precedent in Parliamentary history of a Bill of anything approaching this size going to Committee as late as 23rd January. There is no precedent even approaching it. It is ten major Bills in one. I do not deny that there is a link in policy. In my view, it is the very bad link of wanting to extend public ownership and to restrict and control various sections of the transport industry. Nevertheless, I cannot complain about the Government's trying to get through this very Left-Wing Measure.

This is why one is able to list a whole series of Bills which were not consistent with the Minister's main theme. If the Leader of the House was really pursuing his task as Leader of the whole House responsibily, he would have carefully considered the proposals that certain sections of the Bill should be put into separate legislation. I will list the ten sections involved. They are: a Bill to reorganise the railways; a Bill to create a National Freight Authority; a Bill to create passenger transport authorities throughout the country; a Bill to create a national bus company; a Bill to extend the manufacturing and retailing powers of nationalised industries; a Bill to introduce a new road vehicle licensing system; a Bill to introduce two new forms of taxation on road haulage; a Bill to restrict drivers' hours; an Inland Waterways Bill, and a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill of about 30 Clauses.

When the Minister approached the Opposition at the beginning of our proceedings, the Opposition agreed to various measures, which I shall go through, to ensure that the Bill was properly debated and discussed. First, they agreed immediately, when approached, and without any objection—there is no precedent for this in a Labour Opposition—to the Committee immediately sitting three days a week. On every previous Bill to which there has been opposition in principle, Oppositions have tried to debate whether the Committee should sit three days a week. We agreed immediately and readily. I agreed on behalf of the Opposition before the proceedings started. We voted for this immediately.

Secondly, the Minister asked me whether I would agree to a voluntary timetable ending the proceedings in the middle of May. I duly considered the number of Amendments we would want to move and how we would like to discuss them. I submitted to the right hon. Lady, as far as I could judge at the beginning of the Bill—it is obviously very difficult at the beginning of the Bill to judge the timings that are necessary—my suggestion for the type of timing I thought would be necessary. I said that I realised that to get the Bill through it would mean the Committee sitting long hours and many days but that, if the Government insisted on getting it through, I was willing to agree to a voluntary timetable whereby the whole of the Bill could be discussed and could end its Committee stage by the end of June. I discussed this with my hon. Friends who were members of the Standing Committee and who would have been perfectly willing, for example, to have given up a complete week of the Whitsun Recess to sit as a Committee and to go through the various parts of the Bill properly and sensibly.

The Leader of the House made certain calculations to show how irresponsible it was to make that suggestion. It was not irresponsible, because the Opposition agreed to go through the work which was necessary to complete a voluntary timetable and to get the Bill out of Committee by the end of June. The right hon. Lady told me that this was unacceptable to her.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Did my hon. Friend have the support of the Liberal Party representative on the Committee?

Mr. Walker

I believe that the Liberal Party representative on the Committee probably would have agreed. I did not consult him on this, so I do not know.

Mr. Bessell

In any brief discussions we have had on this matter the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) and I have been in complete agreement. In this matter I support him entirely.

Mr. Walker

The House will, therefore, see that even at this stage the Opposition side of the House would agree to a voluntary timetable for the Bill which would allow the whole Committee stage to be completed by the end of June and we would be willing to sit the hours necessary to achieve that. That was the first offer made to the Government, but it was rejected by the right hon. Lady. She said that she must have the Bill by the middle of May. Therefore, I wrote to the Minister and outlined Clause by Clause those which I thought could be dropped in order that we could complete the major part of the Bill by May.

The Leader of the House knows this, but he made monstrous misquotations about what I wanted to do about the Bill. The Clauses which I submitted were not controversial ones on which we violently disagreed with the Government, not those for setting up provisions for the National Freight Authority or the quality licensing system. We decided that they should drop the miscellaneous provisions, certainly the quantity licensing system, because the Minister had said that she had no intention of using it until the freightliner system had been completed and it will not be completed for two years.

The Government could then put forward a separate licensing Bill next Session if the Minister wanted these very bad and ridiculous proposals to come forward in the time required. If these various Clauses had been dropped, the Bill would have been reduced from 169 Clauses to 99, but it would still keep the 99 most controversial Clauses. It could have been completed by the middle of May, but the Government refused that also and decided instead to go ahead with the guillotine.

Let us study some of the reasons why it is particularly bad for this Government to do so. First, it is a badly prepared Bill. The Leader of the House mentioned the flood of Amendments on the Notice Paper. I do not know whether he counted the number of Government Amendments. So far there are over 170 of those. There are 110 Ministerial Amendments to be debated in the time which is to be guillotined and another 51 in the names of back-benchers on the Government side of the House. So there are 161 to be debated which come from the Government side and which will be included within the guillotine Motion. This is a reflection on how badly prepared this legislation was.

Only this morning we had the remarkable scene in Committee of the Minister putting down an Amendment agreeing to criticisms we had made of the Bill in debate after debate. Throughout one all-night sitting the Minister of State argued that we were wrong in the principle we propounded. Then, at 5.30 in the morning, he apologised and said that we had been right throughout the night, having wasted a considerable amount of the Committee's time. He went on to say that in spite of the fact that we were right technically he still defended the position against us. This morning, as a result of Opposition pressure, the Minister has completely given way on principle. If the Minister can give way on a major principle such as that, it shows the considerable importance of properly debating the Bill. Various suggestions have been made by the Opposition.

Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

With reference to the time-wasting for which the hon. Member suggested the Minister of State was responsible, would he not agree that a great deal of time was wasted by the two Amendments which were debated at length by back-benchers opposite? I thing he entered one fairly extensively. When it was explained that the Amendments would have done exactly the opposite of what hon. Members opposite thought they would do, they had to withdraw them after taking up a lot of time.

Mr. Walker

If a Minister has a case like that to put, it is the easiest thing in the world to intervene in the early stages and make that case.

I make two perfectly reasonable offers of an agreed timetable Motion, one for a shorter Bill and one for a complete Bill which the Government could have accepted. There is the criticism that this Bill of such enormous size came far too late to the Committee. The defence put up by the Leader of the House was that it could have been got into Committee only a few weeks earlier.

Mr. Crossman

Two weeks.

Mr. Walker

Two weeks earlier. The Labour Government managed to get the Steel Bill into Committee far earlier. The only reason given by the Minister for the Bill being so late was that she was anxious to publish White Papers in order to tell us more about the Bill. If that was the purpose, I should have thought there was more justification and need for more ammunition to debate its various concepts. [An HON. MEMBER: "More White Papers?"] I would not bother to put in more White Papers if they were as bad as those which have been already published.

The Leader of the House put up a very surprising argument when trying to defend the record of the Minister. He said that the Minister had had two all-night sittings in order to give the Opposition time to debate its Amendments. He suggested that this was a sort of generosity of the Minister. It is the first time I have known a Government suggest that they are doing a favour to the Opposition by sitting all night. The standard form during the time when there was a Labour Opposition was that whenever the Conservative Government wanted to go on debating throughout the night, the Opposition constantly moved the Adjournment of the House in order to slow down proceedings.

For classic examples of that one has only to look at the position over the 1962 Transport Bill. We have had a classic case on this Bill. On two occasions the Opposition voted to go on sitting. On one occasion the Government abstained and on the second the Government voted down the Opposition and stopped the sitting at 11 o'clock at night. I wonder if the Leader of the House can quote a precedent for that. Let us examine the progress made. The Leader of the House tried to give the impression that progress had gone rather slowly and that this was a justification—[Interruption.] He does not give that reason? He thinks that it had gone rather quickly?

Mr. Crossman

We had to accelerate the pace. I pointed out that it had gone slowly. I contrasted the acceleration required in 1962 with that in 1968.

Mr. Walker

Let us examine the criticism that it has gone too slowly and there is need for acceleration. Up to the time that the guillotine was announced, the Committee had sat for 91 hours, 101 of which were taken up by adjournments, breaks for dinner, and so on. So the actual time until the guillotine was announced was 80½ hours. In that 80½ hours the Committee got through 37 Clauses, six Schedules and 488 Amendments. I defy the Leader of the House to name any controversial Bill in Parliamentary history where such progress has been made. Can the Leader of the House name one? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer "] Can the Minister do so? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer"]

Mr. Crossman

The hon. Gentleman has put a specific question about a precedent. I shall leave it to my right hon. Friend to answer, but he cannot ask for an off-the-cuff answer to a detailed question.

Mr. Walker

Now the Leader of the House, proposing a guillotine Motion, says that he has not bothered to look up a precedent showing whether this has happened before. One supposes that the Leader of the House has not considered what speed the Bill has made through Committee.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

Would my hon. Friend expect the Leader of the House to look up precedents when he is away in Bermuda instead of doing his job here?

Mr. Walker

I would expect any Leader of the House before deciding to move a guillotine Motion on a major controversial Bill to give very careful thought to it. Any Leader of the House who gives it to a Bill which has had 37 Clauses, six Schedules and 488 Amendments dealt with in 80½ hours cannot possibly conclude that there has been filibustering on it.

Mr. Manuel

It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to present that picture of so many Amendments taking only 15 minutes each. Many of them went through just on the nod; there was no discussion of some Government Amendments and certain others. I can bring to the hon. Gentleman's attention cases where there was deliberate filibustering and wasting of time. One example is the first all-night sitting, when we sat for 14 hours and 50 minutes and got through only four Clauses.

Mr. Walker

We must put the matter in its right perspective. The hon. Gentleman was on the 1962 Transport Act Committee as well as the present Committee. In that one all-night sitting we got through twice as many debates and more Clauses than in the first 10 sittings on the 1962 Act.

Why was it suddenly decided at this stage that the Government would move the guillotine? Presumably they became less and less satisfied with the progress being made. But we happen to know that the Minister was satisfied with the progress made on the first Part of the Bill, the first eight Clauses. She has expressed in writing to me that she thought that the progress made on the first Part was good. Therefore, if the Government are to have any case at all they must establish that since completing Part I the position has deteriorated and that there has been filibustering.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one could argue that Amendments taken on the nod were included in the average. But let us consider the average time taken in debates on groups of Amendments to Part I, on which the Minister has expressed her satisfaction at the progress made. The average time taken was 26 minutes. The Minister can argue that that included a very long debate on the procedural Motion as the first sitting. So that I cannot be accused of giving a misleading impression, I should inform the House that if we take that out, the average is 25 minutes per debate. As a result of the faster progress since then, the average time for debate on the whole Bill has come down from 25 minutes on the first Part, on which the right hon. Lady expressed her satisfaction, to 19 minutes.

In case any hon. Member wants to suggest that there has been any trend of filibustering I shall tell the House the number of minutes taken per debate in the sittings since she expressed her satisfaction at the average of 25 minutes. In sitting No. 9 it was 11 minutes, in sitting No. 10—the worst of them all—it was 43 minutes; sitting 11, 21 minutes; sitting 12, nine minutes; sitting 13, 17 minutes; sitting 14, 19 minutes; sitting 15, 11 minutes; sitting 16, 18 minutes; sitting 17, 16 minutes; and—a very bad one—for sitting No. 18 it was 37 minutes. That was also a very short sitting, and one of the main reasons for the length of time taken was that two Government Amendments were moved about trade union representation which took rather a long time. For sitting No. 19 it was 18 minutes; sitting 20, 14 minutes; and sitting No. 21, 19 minutes. In that list of the average time for debate, no trend is shown of the Opposition increasing the time taken.

Let us consider the all-night sitting complained of. Part of the Minister's case and that of one or two of her backbenchers is that at the first all-night sitting progress was nowhere near as fast as at the morning sitting the previous day. That is perfectly correct. The morning sitting average was the fastest ever, at nine minutes per debate. The all-night sitting average was 17 minutes, very much less than the time taken in the Part of the Bill about which the Minister expressed her satisfaction. There can be no criticism, even taking the one example hon. Members opposite wish to give, of the time taken.

Therefore, it can be seen that this is very different from the Acts which the Leader of the House tried to quote. He mentioned the 1962 Transport Act and spoke of the acceleration. Presumably he admits that the very slow progress then made was due to the Labour Opposition. He did not mention the progress the Labour Opposition made after they were told that the guillotine would be moved. Having got through 14 Clauses in about 19 to 20 sittings, we then got through another 14 in the next two sittings before the guillotine came down. This has not happened this time because, our pace was, and has continued to be a responsible pace throughout.

As I have said, we have got through 37 Clauses, six Schedules and 488 Amendments. At the same stage of the 1962 Act, which it was then decided to guillotine, the Committee had got through 12 Clauses and 66 Amendments. We have got through more than three times as many Clauses and more than eight times as many Amendments as was the case in 1962 when, because of the progress made, the Government quite understandably found it necesary to move the guillotine.

The Government decided not to guillotine the Iron and Steel Bill. Why not? If there was no case for guillotining that Bill, there is not a glimmer of a case for guillotining this Bill. At the 20th sitting of the Committee considering the Iron and Steel Bill we had got through 12 Clauses and 134 Amendments; at the same stage of a Bill which the Government decided not to guillotine, the Committee had made only a third of the progress we have made in the same time.

The Minister of Transport (Mrs. Barbara Castle)

What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that if there was no need to guillotine the Iron and Steel Bill there is no need to guillotine this Bill because he does not believe in his own demands. He will be aware of his demand for time. If we come to the famous breakdown of the demand for 455 hours for debate up to the end of June, and remember that the hon. Gentleman is asking for that time for Conservative Amendments alone, leaving out Government and Liberal Amendments, that would give us a debate of 25 hours a week for Conservative Amendments alone, and 50 hours a week for all of them. The average time spent in the unguillotined Iron and Steel debate, which went on to very late hours, was 19 hours a week.

Mr. Walker

There are several major differences, and all of them against the Minister. The first is that the Government had the sense to get the Iron and Steel Bill into Committee in October. The second, where the Minister completely loses her case, is that that Bill, which contained 51 Clauses, had 144 hours in Committee. A simple piece of mental arithmetic shows that the basis of what we asked for with this Bill was not less time per Clause and Schedule than was given by the Government to the Iron and Steel Bill.

Mrs. Castle

The hon. Gentleman is admitting that his hours were not compatible with a terminal date at the end of June.

Mr. Walker

Certainly not. As the right hon. Lady knows, for she has had it in writing from me, I said that we on our side of the Committee would be willing to sit the hours necessary to guarantee the timetable getting out by the end of June. It certainly would mean long hours and giving up a week of the Whitsun Recess. We are happy to do all that. But the Minister has never even discussed it. From the beginning, she said that she wanted the whole Bill by 15th May. She has made no concession on that at all, despite the fact that we offered to com plete the Bill by one date and part of it by 15th May.

Mr. Peter Mahon (Preston, South)

I have the OFFICIAL REPORT Of Our meetings. I say in all sincerity to the hon. Gentleman, as a vigilant and fairly dedicated member of the Committee, that no dispassionate reader of the record of our proceedings would deny that it shows evidence of 75 per cent. filibustering.

Mr. Walker

I will take the hon. Gentleman at his word. How does he explain that the right hon. Lady expressed satisfaction at the progress with Part I, which he claims was 75 per cent. filibustering? Part I, I remind him, went more slowly than the other parts we have discussed. The hon. Gentleman is disagreeing with his right hon. Friend. She said that she was satisfied with the progress on Part I.

Mr. Peter Mahon

The Minister has been very ladylike throughout and most conciliatory all the way through. But the gentlemen on the Committee do not take the same charitable view of the proceedings as she is willing to do.

Mr. Walker

I can understand the hon. Gentleman taking that kind of view, but I hope that he is appropriately gratified that it differs from that of the right hon. Lady. If he goes further into his allegation that there has been 75 per cent. filibustering, he will discover the unfortunate fact that, for the first 10 sittings, the Labour members of the Committee spoke more than the Conservative members and that, even at this stage, the Conservative members have taken up less than 50 per cent. of the whole time of the proceedings.

Mrs. Castle

Is not the hon. Gentleman really being a little disingenuous? He knows that throughout the proceedings in Committee Government spokesmen, whether Front Bench or back bench, have always taken a marked minority of the time. They have taken up 36 per cent. of the time compared with 64 per cent. by the Opposition, and there has been a pretty united front between the two Opposition Parties on this.

Mr. Walker

rose—

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Walker

Certainly not. I repeat that the right hon. Lady expressed satisfaction with the progress of Part I of the Bill, yet that took longer than the remaining parts of the Bill we have dealt with. It ill becomes her to say that too much time has been taken by the Opposition when she has said that the time taken on Part I was reasonable and when the time taken on Part II and Part III has been less than on Part I.

If the right hon. Lady wants to examine the proportions of time taken, I would point out that the time taken by the Opposition has been perfectly responsible. She should contrast that with the time taken by the Labour Opposition on the 1962 Act. There was a very different picture there. The Labour Opposition then took nearly two and half times as much time as all the Government and Liberal speakers put together. The right hon. Lady has no case on this.

Let us look at the time to be allowed for the rest of the proceedings on the Bill. The right hon. Lady has referred to the need for acceleration. By the time this Motion is put into operation, we will have seven Parliamentary weeks left before 15th May, assuming 10 days for the Easter recess. Thus, in eight weeks, moving faster than on any controversial Bill this century, we have to get through the remaining three quarters of the Measure. Yet this remainder contains the highly contentious proposals for quality licensing, quantity licensing, abnormal loads tax and wear and tear taxes. Nevertheless, the Government want it all pushed through Parliament in seven Parliamentary weeks. We are expected to treble our speed. We are expected in seven weeks to get through 124 Clauses, 12 Schedules, 110 Ministerial Amendments, 51 Labour back-bench amendments. Even without the Opposition moving any Amendments at all, this would be a completely unreasonable timetable.

The right hon. Gentleman has great responsibility as Leader of the House. I ask him to think of the impossible position he is putting the Business Committee in. It has a high reputation in endeavouring to come to conclusions on a nonpartisan basis. But when a Government introduce a highly controversial Bill and then impose the worst guillotine Motion in Parliamentary memory, the Committee is placed in an embarrassing and almost impossible position. The right hon. Gentleman should have carefully considered this before agreeing to the Motion.

The Government are guillotining a Bill upon which fast progress has been made and which they failed to get into Committee at the proper time and to prepare in the proper way. Either the right hon. Lady has been incompetent in getting the Bill into Committee in time and incompetent in drafting it properly, with the result that it needs so many Government Amendments, or she is anxious for the hideous proposals in it not to be debated. The right hon. Gentleman is either completely ignorant of the proceedings which have taken place upstairs or else he has failed to fulfil in the best traditions of the House the tasks of his office as Leader of the House.

The Government must either be ignorant of the economic effects of the Bill or must have a complete disregard for Parliament. This guillotine Motion was put on the Order Paper last Tuesday and seven Government Amendments have been put down already. This is yet another example of their incompetence. Indeed, the whole Motion and their attitude to the Bill are classic examples of the Government's incompetence—and we get such examples day after day.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee (Wokingham)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier, you indicated your intention to move on to the taking of Amendments at about 8 o'clock. It is now after quarter past six, without any back bench expression of opinion having been made. For the assistance of hon. Members interested in the Amendments, will you indicate whether that is still your intention?

Mr. Speaker

I thought that I had earlier indicated that I had taken note of that point. We did start the debate rather late. I shall, therefore, call the first Amendment later than 8 o'clock.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon (Chorley)

As one who has sat through a number of debates on guillotine Motions, I find that there is no difference between this one and its predecessors. Whenever any Government bring forward such a Motion, they always encounter tremendous opposition.

I received this Bill in about the middle of December and the Selection Committee had to choose the Standing Committee for the Bill on 20th December. I made a careful study of the Bill, because it was a very large one and because I have never believed that the Selection Committee should be a rubber stamp for any Government. I was concerned to discover that the Bill contained 169 Clauses and 18 Schedules in 11 Parts.

As the Committee stage of the Bill could not begin before 23rd January, I examined the timing possibilities. For the Bill to complete its Committee stage, it was obvious that the normal Committee days of Tuesday and Thursday were totally inadequate. They would have provided only 36 sittings up to the end of May and an average of five Clauses would have had to be passed at each sitting if consideration of the Bill was to be completed. Adding Wednesdays, there would have been 54 sittings and an average of three Clauses per sitting would have had to be dealt with. If the Committee sat during the mornings and afternoons of the three days, there would have been 108 sittings and an average of almost two Clauses per day would have had to be dealt with in order to get the Bill through by the end of May.

It is interesting to note that the progress of the Bill so far is identical with the progress which would have been made throughout the 108 sittings. I calculated on the basis of three-hour sittings, but we know that three-hour sittings on a Bill of this sort are impossible. The House will note that I have not taken account of Amendments. As we know, a tremendous number of Amendments have been proposed by the Government and by the Opposition.

It was perfectly clear in December that it was utterly impossible for the Committee to deal with the Bill reasonably in the time available. Therefore, I was not surprised when the guillotine Motion was proposed. When a major Bill of this description is introduced two months after the beginning of a Session, a time-table Motion should be introduced with it. During the 23 sittings of the Committee on the Bill so far, 45 Clauses have been dealt with.

Mr. Bessell

The hon. Gentleman has raised a most interesting point. Does he know of any precedent for the introduction of a time-table Motion at the same time as the introduction of a Bill?

Mr. Kenyon

No. I hope that my suggestion will be considered when any Government propose to introduce a Bill like this.

If the present rate of progress were maintained, the Bill would have been completed by the end of May without the need to introduce a guillotine Motion. As it is, far longer sittings will be involved than has been the case up to now. Quite a few all-night sittings will be needed to get the Bill through. Therefore, the guillotine is necessary to get the Bill through in time and to prevent an intolerable strain being placed on hon. Members. Moreover, the most controversial parts of the Bill have not yet been reached.

As with all guillotine Motions, the effect of this Motion will be to curtail or even to prevent discussion of the most important parts of the Bill. It is most essential that there should be discussion of the vital parts of Bills. Here I part company with the Government. It was quite wrong for the Committee stage of a Bill of this magnitude to begin at the end of January. [Interruption]

If the railway workers had to deal with matters of this sort, they would think so, too. Many things are done in this House which the workers think are quite daft.

If it were possible for the whole of the Bill to be ready at the beginning of the Session, it should have been separated. It could be split into at least three Measures. Had that been done, there could have been a full and exhaustive examination of each part of it. As it is, parts of the Bill will not be discussed at all. This is bound to leave a sense of grievance among those sections of the transport industry whose position cannot be debated.

It is time that the Government and the Opposition, not just in this Parliament, but in any Parliament, agreed on a system whreby a timetable was introduced at the beginning of the consideration of every major Bill. It should be the normal procedure of the House. It would avoid all this trouble, which we get in every Parliament. Time could be allotted to the various Clauses so that there was reasonable discussion of them. This is not a guillotine; it is a timetable to enable the Bill to be properly debated.

Mr. Stainton

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that his suggestion would, or could, represent a still further and serious erosion of the rights of back bench Members?

Mr. Kenyon

It could not represent as great an erosion of the rights of private Members as a guillotine does.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting suggestion, but surely much depends on the number of Amendments arising from bad drafting or from the form of the Bill. If a Bill is perfectly drawn and the draftsmen have done their job, such a timetable might be adequate and right, but if, as in this case, there are hundreds of Government as well as Opposition Amendments, the timetable would not be fair.

Mr. Kenyon

If the timetable were operated as I have suggested, it would cut out many Amendments from both sides.

Whenever a guillotine is applied, it is not merely a negation of democracy; it is a negation of justice. Moreover, it is an infringement of the rights of Members of Parliament to express the views of their constituents. With a Measure such as this, touching this industry in the whole country in one form or another, it is essential that there should be the widest possible debate on every part of the Bill, but this negation occurs whenever any guillotine Motion is introduced, whatever the party in power.

I accept that it can be argued with some accuracy that hon. Members themselves often bring about a guillotine, but it is the duty of every Government when introducing a Bill, whatever its nature or purpose, to see that there is ample time for it to pass through all its stages with fair, adequate and reasonable debate. That cannot be done for the Transport Bill without an unnecessary strain on the members of the Committee. When the Government decided to introduce the Bill two months late in the Session, in all fairness they should have cut the Bill in order to give ample time for its discussion.

I have had some experience of Committee work. Some hon. Members came to me who wanted to be on this Committee. I acceded to their request, and said a little prayer for them at the same time. If I address some remarks to hon. Members, I hope that they will not take them amiss. There was some difficulty about the setting up of this Committee. I refused to accept—and the Selection Committee agreed with me—the proposal that there should be five Ministers on this Committee.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have a great regard for the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), but on this guillotine Motion we cannot discuss the constitution of the Committee.

Mr. Kenyon

Very good, Mr. Speaker; I will pass from that. I will say only that we had some difficulty in the setting up of the Committee, both about Ministers and the number of Members. One difficulty was the shortage of Members. We could not set up a Committee of 40 Members as we wished. I point out to the House that there are 80 Members on the Government side who never take part in Committee work, and there are 90 such Members on the Opposition side. I hope that that will give hon. Members food for serious thought.

During the past few weeks, I have met a number of transport workers and directors of companies who have put their views about the Bill to me. I have found them to be very reasonable. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) thinks that they are unreasonable. I have found them to be reasonable. One usually gets reasonableness according to one's approach. They are uncertain about their position. This is a Bill which breaks the whole tenor of the work and life of many people. It is something which they cannot take lightly and every consideration should be given to all their views.

It is wrong to give these people the feeling that, by hindering for retarding the progress of the Bill, one supports them. That is not the case. The case against the Bill can be put with reason and with constructive Amendments. I feel sure that if such a case were put in the Committee, it would be given the consideration which it merited.

I do not like the Bill as it has been presented. The Government have made a blunder. Even at this stage, rather than force it through on a guillotine Motion, it would be far better for the Government to cut the Bill and to introduce it n separate parts, so affording free discussion of every part and every Clause.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell (Bodmin)

I have followed the speech of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) with great interest. He has put fairly and commendably many of the arguments which we on this side of the House wish to put to the Government, and we are grateful to him.

I regard today's discussion as one of the most important debates in which I have had the privilege of taking part since becoming a Member of Parliament. Because of the nature of the debate, I looked for precedents for a guillotine Motion and for speeches by distinguished Members of the House in the past, in order to try to get the entire debate into focus. I was particularly impressed by a speech made in 1954 by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, Mr. Harold Macmillan. He put forward an argument for the guillotine, and, for the sake of getting our discussion into proportion, it is worth quoting his words.

Referring to a guillotine debate he said: What happens is this. The right hon. and hon. Members who find themselves for the moment n opposition are filled with an extraordinary devotion to the principles of constitutional Government, to the free rights of Members, to the long historical struggle of Parliament against the Executive, to the cause for which Hampden died in the field and Sidney on the scaffold. But when, with the all-healing flow of time, these same Members find themselves upon the Government benches, they become comparatively immune to these high-flown sentiments. They are influenced by the urgent necessity which every Government feel to carry through their Parliamentary business with some relation to the calendar and the march of even ts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1954; Vol. 524, c. 42.] That is a realistic view of the use of the guillotine in normal circumstances.

During the same year another view was expressed by another hon. Gentleman who said: Debates on the Guillotine are mainly matters for ancient Parliamentary men—for Members of the Front Bench particularly, and for those who are interested in the Bill which it is sought to Guillotine. Most Members of the House regard the Guillotine as a regrettable necessity of a Government. In the last resort a Government must govern for if powers like the Guillotine did not exist there would be government by the minority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1954; Vol. 527, c. 1078.] This puts into perspective the attitude which right hon. Members might adopt towards a guillotine Motion. Today there is a fundamental reason why it is right and proper that hon. Members on this side of the House should oppose this Motion. I believe that I am right in saying that the size of this Bill is unique in recent Parliamentary history. I interrupted the Leader of the House and asked him whether he could quote any instance of legislation of this size coming before the House in recent history, and whether there was any precedent for a Bill of this size receiving the guillotine. He did not answer, and I believe that that was because he knows as we all know that the size of the Bill is such that it is quite wrong that it should be guillotined, at this stage.

There have been many cases when a business Motion has been discussed by the House and there have been a large number of interesting comments made by hon. Members who now sit on the Government benches but who, in those days sat on the Opposition benches. I have already quoted from two authorities, who have both recognised the necessity for the guillotine. I do not quarrel with that necessity in special circumstances, but the words used by other hon. Members in other connections are far more appropriate to this debate, because of the nature and content of the Bill upon which it is sought to restrict discussion. First, let me quote from the speech made in the House on 4th February, 1957, in the debate on the allocation of time Motion on the Rent Bill, by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). He said: The fact is that by its very nature the Bill,"— he was referring to the Rent Bill— touching so many millions of people, is one that demands continued and prolonged discussion. We have to remember, also, that this is a controversial Bill, and because the matter is controversial it does not mean that we should cut down the amount of discussion on it. It is a reason for extending discussion and a reason why there should not be a guillotine."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1957; Vol. 564, c. 110.] That was the Secretary of State for Scotland, who I am glad to see is in his place. I had no idea that he was going to be here. His words then were words of wisdom and I accept everything that he says. Having applied those words to a Bill which, I agree with him, was controversial—one which affected the lives of millions of people—would he deny that this Bill is any less controversial or that it affects the lives of millions of people any the less than the Bill to which he referred on 4th February?

I should like to take another example because it is important to see the attitude which has been adopted toward Bills of far less importance. I have a speech by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who was shadow Minister of Transport when the Conservative Party were in power. He said in relation to the Business Motion on the 1962 Transport Bill: We"— he was referring to the Opposition— dislike many parts of this Bill very much indeed. Therefore we cannot be expected to agree to any proposals such as the right hon. Gentleman puts before us today which makes its passage easier or more certain. We were elected to the House to oppose by all the powers which Parliamentary procedure accords to us the enactment of such legislation as this Transport Bill". He said later: We think that it is a thoroughly bad Bill and will have bad consequences nationally and on those working in the industry. Therefore, we oppose the time table Motion, which will inevitably curtail what we consider to be proper discussion of the Bill and the movement of essential Amendments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 442.] That was the view of the Opposition in relation to the 1962 Bill. It is true that the Opposition today take precisely the same view of the Government's proposed legislation. We feel today, as the present Government felt when in Opposition in 1962 about the Tory Government's legislation. We feel about it in the same passionate way as did hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in Opposition. It was right that they, as an Opposition, should oppose bitterly the idea of a timetable Motion, as the right hon. Member for Vauxhall did. If they were right then, they must be consistent. They must accept that just as there were big issues of principle involved, which caused them to oppose the the timetable Motion, so there are big issues of principle now involved for us, in many cases bigger issues of principle, because the scope of the Bill is very much greater. Therefore, the Government should afford to us that which they demanded when in Opposition.

There is one other quotation which I must give, from a speech made by the right hon. Lady the Minister of Transport, when she was in opposition. She was speaking in respect of the timetable Motion before the House on 23rd January, 1962. She said: We therefore oppose this guillotine Motion, not because we want to filibuster, but because we say that both these Measures introduce vital new principles that fundamentally affect the civil rights and liberties … of the people of the country. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1962; Vol. 652, c. 480.] If the right hon. Lady were in her place I do not think that she would deny that within this Bill there are measures which will fundamentally alter the lives of many people. I do not wish, and you would not allow me, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the merits of the case, but it is sufficient to say that her Bill was at least as controversial as that about which she was then speaking. I cannot believe that it is right that a Government should adopt one attitude when in Opposition and a totally different attitude when in Government.

As I have said, there can be circumstances and conditions under which a timetable Motion is essential. But it depends on the nature of the legislation. I believe the Labour Party as an Opposition were absolutely right to oppose a timetable Motion on the 1962 Transport Act, and had I been in the House I should have done likewise; but I do not think they can have it both ways. That is the fundamental reason why I object so strongly to this Motion before us.

I will give one other quotation from a speech made last night by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon). He said—and I salute him for it: As a true democrat, I feel that all that matters is that one should say what one wants to say. We can all then be happy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 13th March, 1968; c. 1733.] This is what we are here to do. This is what we are elected to do in this place. The Government must get their business, but we have here a number of matters which make this particular Motion objectionable to the House. There is the size of the Bill, which I will not labour again. There is the late date of its introduction. This has been passed over. It was passed over by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, but it is most unfair to do so because there is no reason at all why we should not have had a Second Reading debate at the start of this Session of Parliament; there is no reason why the Bill should not have been committed to a Standing Committee immediately, and why we should not have got in a substantial number of sittings before the Christmas Recess. The fact is, we did not start until 23rd January and the progress we have made since then—

Mr. Ridley

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Steel Bill was out of Committee by Christmas.

Mr. Bessell

Yes, I was aware of that. I did not want to raise the question of the Steel Bill because that is one we have discussed on several occasions in relation to this Bill, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. There is the late start, but there is also the progress made; and the case which has been put to the House this afternoon by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) is, in my submission, unanswerable. It is an unanswerable case because in this massive piece of legislation, which was so well described by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), we have dealt, up to our sitting today, with 44 Clauses and five Schedules, a total of 49 sections altogether, in a mater of 22 sittings. The right hon. Lady the Minister herself told the hon. Member for Worcester that she was satisfied with the early progress made. It is impossible to believe that the Minister is not satisfied with the progress which has been made so far.

The suggestion has been made that because we are now reaching more controversial aspects of the Bill, because we are reaching Clauses which are likely to exercise the concern of the Opposition more than the earlier Clauses, this is the moment to introduce the guillotine. I reject that argument because until it can be shown beyond peradventure of doubt that the Opposition are either deliberately opposing, in the sense that they are filibustering or are behaving in a manner which is likely to prevent the right hon. Lady getting her legislation this Session, then it is clearly utterly wrong that any question of a guillotine should even arise, let alone that a Motion should be put before the House.

At a later stage if the Minister were able to say to the House that we have deliberately filibustered or behaved on the Opposition benches in such a manner that we were not making progress, if she could say, "In the first 22 sittings we got a matter of nearly 50 sections of the Bill completed but thereafter things slowed down and became impossible", she might have a case and I might not myself oppose a guillotine in those circumstances. But the fact is that there has been some time wasted. There has been time wasted on the Committee and the only reason why time has been wasted is that given earlier this afternoon by other hon. Members—because we discussed at such great length one vital issue of principle which was resolved by an Amendment which we received only this morning.

I am grateful for the concession made to the Opposition in this Amendment, as I said earlier upstairs, but the fact remains that if there has been any waste of time that waste is entirely due to the failure of the Government to take the point we were making with such insistence earlier and to their having waited until now to accept it, thus causing us to have to argue repeatedly a case which we knew was of such importance. Even though it took so long to get that through to the Government, I am glad that at least we got that concession today.

I believe that in democratic terms there is a solution to this problem. In fact, there are two solutions. There is that which has been offered by the hon. Member for Worcester. It may be said that to sit for 50 hours a week would be to put an intolerable strain on hon. Members. I reject that argument. It is not unusual for many workers in many industries in this country to work 70 hours a week and, although I do not like this, the fact remains that it happens. We ask it of other people. We allow other people to do it. Why should we in this House regard ourselves as being so sheltered? Why should not we be prepared to work 50 hours a week?

It has been mentioned that I am the only Liberal in the Committee. That is true, and it is right because it is in the right proportion. But it means that I have to be present throughout every sitting of the Committee, and I am. if I am prepared to sit all night and to sit for 50 hours a week—and I am prepared to do that—then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why the Government should not do likewise.

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting—it may be true as far as he is concerned—that the only work one does as a Member of Parliament is in this House? Should not all the work we have to do outside be taken into consideration?

Mr. Bessell

I speak of unusual circumstances. I would not ordinarily expect any hon. Member to sit in a Committee for 50 hours a week, but we have here a piece of legislation so far-reaching in its consequences and with such a vast number of new provisions that, irrespective of the merits or otherwise of those provisions, the issues are so vital that I believe hon. Members should not consider themselves and should be prepared to make any sacrifice in order to give adequate time to debate and discuss it, even though it means sitting 50 hours a week.

There is an alternative solution.

Mr. Peter Mahon

rose—

Mr. Bessell

I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman now, though I will be glad to do so later. We are good friends in the Committee upstairs. The other solution which I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is that we sit if necessary through the Summer Recess. I know this would not be popular; certainly it would not be popular with me. I do not want to do so. I want to get back to Cornwall with all possible speed, but nevertheless I still say that we have a peculiar, special and indeed unique responsibility to this House and to the country in respect of this Bill, and for that reason it would, in my view, be far more reasonable for the House and for the Committee to sit if necessary at any legth of time, either on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Worcester or through the summer in order that this Bill, of all Bills, shall be fully considered clause by clause.

There is one other matter to which I should like to refer briefly. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House said he would not accuse me of filibustering in Committee. He referred to my 1,001 nights of Arabian entertainment. I said in correction that the number was 1,047. However, I have to correct myself, because there are 1,086 Amendments in my name.

It is true that I have made some 160 to 180 speeches upstairs and that I have taken up a large number of columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT. However, perhaps I may refer the Leader of the House to a comment in this morning's Sun about my performance. Referring to me, it said: However much it may irritate the Government, that is what he is there for. That is the job that I have to do.

Mr. Peter Mahon

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is always very courteous and has said how anxious he is to preserve our friendship. What has amazed me is that, during his period as the only Liberal hon. Member serving on the Committee, he has so conspicuously out-Toried the Tories.

Mr. Bessell

I will not follow that argument. It is one that we have had upstairs and one which it would be quite improper to discuss now. If the hon. Gentleman means that I have been firm and assiduous in my opposition, I have, and that is what I am there to do. It is also true that neither the hon. Gentleman nor any of his hon. Friends have accused me of filibustering. On the contrary, frequently they have complimented me on trying to be constructive in my argument. In fact, that has been true of all sides. No hon. Member on either side of the Committee has filibustered or attempted to argue at great length. One cannot complain at the length of Ministerial replies or at the length of speeches from the Opposition side, by they Conservative or Liberal. We have done our utmost to get the Bill through as quickly as possible, allowing for all the complexities and the many new measures contained in it.

Mr. David Webster (Weston-super-Mare)

Has that not been proved by the fact that the closure has not been moved once in the substantive part of the Bill?

Mr. Bessell

That is a very important point. On no occasion has the closure been moved in the Standing Committee. If it was necessary to bring in this guillotine Motion, how much more necesary must it have been to have introduced a closure Motion on some of the debates upstairs. We know that that has not occurred. The figures were given by the hon. Member for Worcester. We know that progress has been sound, smooth and satisfactory.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield (Nuneaton)

I hesitate to correct the hon. Gentleman, but I would remind him that we had a closure on the sittings Motion on the first meeting of the Committee.

Mr. Bessell

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. We had a closure on the sittings Motion but that was not a closure on a debate on the content of the Bill, and that is the point that I am making. He is speaking on a technicality and not the merits of the Bill, which is the point to which I am referring. On one occasion in this House, a very great Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. David Lloyd George said in respect of another right hon. Member: Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have crossed the Floor of this House, but never has an hon. or right hon. Gentleman crossed the Floor and left such a slimy trail of hypocrisy behind him. The Leader of the House, who in opposition voted consistently against guillotine Motions, crossed the Floor quite properly when his party came to office. Today he holds a position which is perhaps only the second highest that this House can give to any of its hon. Members, perhaps second only to Mr. Speaker himself. He is Leader of the whole House, and not just Leader on behalf of the Labour Government. We expected and hold the unquestioned right to expect that in his high office as Leader of the House he would honour the principles for which he cast his vote when he was in opposition. I believe that he has failed us all, and he has failed those principles. To revise the words which Lloyd George used, it is a sorry and a slimy story upon which we are embarked today.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) has the advantage, because it is easier for Liberals to speak on guillotine Motions than on some others. I say that as one who comes from a Liberal family. The Liberals have not had the duty or the opportunity of exercising powers of government for quite a long time now, and perhaps they find it easier than some others to be consistent on guillotine Motions.

I would remind him, however, that it was the Liberal Party which introduced the idea of guillotine Motions in the first place, and it was that party which introduced the most severe restrictions on the freedom of speech that this House has ever introduced. At the time of the operations of the Irish Parliamentary Party, the Liberals introduced the closure and many of the devices which we now find convenient. They did that when they exercised the powers of government. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should be a little more careful about making charges of hypocrisy in these matters.

In fairness to him, it was a very severe charge which came from this side of the House. I think that he was rather provoked by the accusation about out-Torying the Tories. That is not the kind of accusation which I like to hear flung round the House. However, it would be better if he withdrew the last part of his speech.

Mr. Bessell

I said at the outset that I recognised the necessity for a guillotine. My objection was for the reasons which I gave.

Mr. Foot

I can understand that. I was dealing only with the charge which the hon. Gentleman made against my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Before making charges of that character, I think that he should take into account the measures which the Government have introduced for extending the opportunities of back bench hon. Members and others to engage in debates. He should take into account the general reforms of Parliament which have been introduced during the period of this Government. If he did that, I am sure that he would not feel justified in making such a charge.

Having said that, I do not engage in the debate as one who likes guillotine Motions. I have engaged in many such debates, but I do not like them. If they can be avoided, it is a great advantage. I am not an enthusiastic supporter of the view stated by some hon. Members on both sides that we should have automatic time-tables all the time. I am not in favour of them and, as a result, it may be that I approach this matter with a more open mind than right hon. and hon. Members on either Front Bench.

There is normally a game of Parliamentary tit-for-tat on guillotine Motions, with one side quoting what was said previously by the leaders on the other side. I do not propose to engage in that sort of exchange. It is not necessary. As I say, I approach the matter with an open mind. I have voted for some guillotine Motions. I have voted against others. I propose to exercise that right today in the same carefree way.

Perhaps at this point I might deal with the most substantial point made by the hon. Member for Bodmin, echoing something said by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), to whose speech I shall come to in a moment because my remarks will be directed mainly at him.

The main argument put by the hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his speech was that the Government were doing something unprecedented in applying a guillotine to this Bill of a different nature from the other Bills to which the guillotine has been applied. That is a powerful argument. But all Governments have to do things for the first time. All precedents have been set in this manner. Therefore, precedent of itself is not a conclusive argument.

Although I have other things to say about the Measure later, I would argue that the Bill is unprecedented in that I cannot recall any previous Transport Bills which have been presented since 1945—and, after all, Transport Bills are of extreme importance to the country as a whole—where the House of Commons has been presented, over a period of a year or more before, with a series of White Papers laying out all the main principles incorporated in it.

Mr. John H. Osborn (Sheffield, Hallam)

rose—

Mr. Foot

I do not say that everything in the Bill has appeared in the White Papers. The whole point of producing a White Paper is to have a discussion on it and, therefore, to carry through some of the Amendments before the Bill is introduced. Otherwise they would have to be dealt with in Committee if there were no White Paper.

Mr. Osborn

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the White Paper was produced only within a few days, at most weeks, before the Bill was published? That does not give the House of Commons, and particularly the country, the opportunity to realise what will happen. Therefore, his argument is very weak.

Mr. Foot

The hon. Gentleman has not appreciated the full force of my point. It is not only one White Paper. I understand there were five White Papers. If hon. Gentlemen opposite want to treat the matter seriously—they may treat it frivolously if they wish—I say that it is a good thing that Governments should present White Papers in advance of matters of major principle which shall be discussed. In this case, I understand that the first White Paper was issued 18 months or more ago.

Of course there has been discussion up and down the country about it and of course there have been changes. Therefore, this Bill comes to the House of Commons with more White Papers having been presented to the country and with more opportunities for the country to discuss the background of the Measure than almost any other Bill which has ever been presented to the House.

The hon. Member for Worcester complains about this. He says that if we produce more White Papers we need to have more discussion in Committee. That is part of his argument. I hope that the Government will not follow his advice. If they did, it would mean that henceforth they would not produce any White Papers before Measures were introduced. That is the logic of what he is saying. In that event, we would get a different hullabaloo from the other side. They would say, "Why do you throw this Measure at us without a White Paper in advance?" They had better make up their minds which they want.

Mr. Peter Walker

The basis of the argument was that the introduction of White Papers is no excuse for getting a Bill late into Committee.

Mr. Foot

That is a different argument. It is part of the argument, but I cannot deal with the whole of the hon. Gentleman's argument in one paragraph or even one sentence. One of his main arguments was that the fact that we had extra White Papers meant that we should have longer time allocated in Committee. Contrary to that, I say it is surely common sense that the more White Papers there are and the longer the notice given to the country of the matters at issue the more one tends to the view that there is a right to curtail the Committee stage.

Mr. Ridley

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the publication of a White Paper, which may be discussed and debated throughout the country, is a substitute for Parliamentary debate in Committee?

Mr. Foot

I am in no sense suggesting that. I am seeking to controvert the argument of the hon. Gentleman who complains that the Government have presented White Papers, I am arguing not that it is a substitute for detailed examination of a Bill, but that it deprives the Opposition at least of that part of their argument on a guillotine Motion that there has been no opportunity for the principles of a Measure to be discussed in the country. The Government have taken the precaution of publishing five White Papers which enabled the country to have precisely that discussion.

One of the main arguments for longer proceedings in Committee is that we should give people in the country an opportunity to react. If it is said that the protest from the country has come a bit late, that they have not had time, I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that they have had organisations operating in the country quite a long time. I only got my signed protest about this Bill yesterday morning. I agree it is late, but these organisations have been in operation for quite a long time, as the hon. Member for Worcester knows.

That brings me directly to him. I am disappcinted with him. I have read the speeches which he has been making for months about the Bill based on the White Papers. Before the Bill was ever published he went up and down the country telling us what terrible things he would do when the Bill was introduced. Week after week, if one opened up the news papers at the weekend, one discovered that the hon. Gentleman had made another speech on the matter. The speeches got better and better as they went on. So frequently did these speeches appear in the newspapers that I thought he was doing what I describe as "doing a Donnelly"; that is, getting reports of speeches that are not delivered before phantom audiences. All through September, October, November and all the rest, the hon. Gentleman travelled up and down the country from Lands End to John O'Groats saying, "There is going to be the greatest Parliamentary fight in history when we get this Bill brought before us." That is what we were told. Organisations were brought into being. I do not know how much money they contributed to the Conservative Central Office and I do not suppose the hon. Gentleman knows because they probably did not count it for him. There has been a powerful organisation at work making contributions either directly or indirectly to the Conservative Party or to Aims of Industry to prepare for this great Parliamentary battle to be led by the hon. Gentleman.

I could hardly believe my ears this afternoon. After all these prophecies of what was going to happen. I take this on the hon. Gentleman's own testimony. What have they been doing upstairs? No filibustering. Shooting through Amendments at record speed. There have been 45 Amendments in so many sittings—the fastest procedure on any Bill that there has ever been. After all these promises of belligerent opposition, upstairs in Committee he has been as good as gold. He has never used 12 words where one would do. He has been succinct almost to the point of being cryptic. That goes not only for him but for all other hon. Gentlemen. That is what has been happening upstairs.

What about the people who have contributed to the Conservative Party funds? They ought to ask for their money back. The hon. Gentleman is guilty of a political fraud on Bristol Siddeley. I have a whole list down here of the things on which he has been assisting my right hon. Friend. When something was slowing up he has come forward with a new suggestion for helping it along. He would say, "Are you having difficulties here? I do not mind. I will give you special time to get through the controversial matters. That is especially hard, is it not?".

Hon. Gentlemen here have been holding meetings with their constituents. I bet that they have not been telling their constituents what the hon. Gentleman said this afternoon. They have probably been saying, "We will fight this Bill. Do you know what a fight is going on?" That is what they have been saying. Or have they said: "We are going to make sure that this Bill, the biggest Transport Bill we have had, is going to go through without any real formidable opposition"? I think that I have his words. I think he said that he defied the Government to instance any occasion on which the Opposition had held up the Bill. He invited the House to take into account the fact that the Minister has said that she is satisfied. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they meet the hauliers and the others who have backed them, tell them that the hon. Gentleman has conducted the opposition to the Bill in such a manner as to leave no possible question of criticism by the Government. That is the situation.

It is difficult to believe what hon. Gentlemen opposite have been saying. We are told about the need for honesty, that people must say candidly what they mean. If we take the hon. Gentleman at his word, the exposition that he has given kills him as a future Parliamentary leader. I had the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman. I remember that once we engaged in a campaign together. We were both against the Common Market. He took charge of the outer Empire, while I looked after affairs in Europe I say with my usual modesty that I was more successful in bringing about our failure to get into the Common Market, than the hon. Gentleman was. I had great respect for the hon. Gentleman when he was fighting in those days, but now he has given up. We now have him getting up and saying that we must have responsible treatment of the Bill, and get it through faster than is proposed. I have said it about others, but it fits the hon. Gentleman better than anybody else. He has moved from rising hope to elder statesman without any intervening period. We shall have no more trouble from the hon. Gentleman.

If it is asked why my right hon. Friend, who has been assisted in this way at every turn by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who has been treated so courteously, should have been so heartless as to force a guillotine on them, the answer is simple. It is that perhaps even the hon. Gentleman in his less militant mood, in this new form that he takes, might change his mind later. I give him more credit than he gives himself today. He is not as green as he looks. Everybody knows how our procedures are operated in this House. Everybody watches the timetable. It would be very foolish if the more belligerent Member of the Liberal Party were to start doing anything approaching a filibuster up to this stage, but, as the weeks pass, one is reminded of a seesaw. As we get past a certain date, it can be calculated by clever Chief Whips—and the Chief Whip of the Tory Party is clever—that if they turn on the heat then, they can not merely disrupt this Bill, but disrupt the rest of the timetable. The hon. Gentleman's protests of innocence may therefore not be as good as he claims, because if my right hon. Friend was unwise enough to fall for this guileless approach, we might lose the Bill, or parts of it, and that is what the hon. Gentleman is after.

The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with this very skilfully, and I think that my right hon. Friends have chosen the right moment to bring in the Guillotine. I give this advice to the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend is a very good Minister of Transport. Indeed, I think that she is a good Minister in a nutty Government, and I am glad that she has been so successful in the Ministry where so many previous politicians have found their graveyard. I give the hon. Gentleman this advice, and perhaps it might be followed by anyone else who wants to deal with my right hon. Friend. I have known her for a long time, and I give her credit for what she has done.

The way to deal with my right hon. Friend is to make up one's mind that she will get her way in the end, and ask how. If one does that, one may be able to extract some concessions. One may be able to accommodate her. I am sure that this has been learned in her Department, and by many of her Cabinet colleagues. I would like to see her having her way even more, but that is the way to deal with her.

Instead of that, the hon. Gentleman and the party opposite have betrayed the people who have backed them in this fight. Tomorrow the message will go out to all the road hauliers, all those in the country who have contributed to the Conservative Party, that the party, on its own confession, has given up the fight on this Bill. The fact is that they have never fought at all. That is what hon. Gentlemen opposite have said today. That leaves the Member of the Liberal Party as the sole real opponent of the Bill, but I do not think that even his gallant fight will revive the fortunes of his party.

This Bill is different from any other. It is different in the sense that it is a much more Socialist Measure than most of the other Measures introduced by the Government. This is one reason why hon. Gentlemen opposite have been caught out. This Bill is different because, for the first time in this century, we have a Measure which is trying to deal fundamentally with the transport problems of this country. It is trying to deal with them comprehensively, which is the only way in which they can be dealt with. There was therefore every ground for putting all the proposals into one Bill. There was every ground for seeking to get the country to understand how the different parts of the Bill fitted together. There was every ground for presenting it to the House as a Measure of major importance, and not one that could be taken aside and murdered by the Opposition.

I am therefore glad that the Government have completely outwitted the Opposition on this matter. I do not say that that is the highest of tributes that I should like to pay, but the hon. Gentleman should learn a lesson from what has happened to him. He should not run away in future. He should stand by his principles. That is what he should have done on the Common Market, but he ran away then. I do not know what rewards have been accorded to him on that account.

Mr. Peter Walker

While on the question of running away from principles, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he considers that he ran away from his principles the last time he spoke on a guillotine Motion when he said: It is because I believe that both the guillotine and the authority of private Labour Party meetings upstairs or of 1922 Committees make discussion a fake, … that all these institutions are derogatory of the authority of the House of Commons itself …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1962; Vol. 652, c. 459.]

Mr. Foot

I hold to those views, and if the hon. Gentleman had attended a meeting upstairs a few weeks ago he would have heard me say the same thing. Unfortunately, I have not been able to attend a meeting of the 1922 Committee, but I am sure that what I said about it is true, so I do not retract a word of it.

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is outside this particular guillotine Motion.

Mr. Foot

I hope that we need have no more discussion about the guillotine, now that there is unanimity about the necessity for getting the Bill through at the pace which the hon. Gentleman has laid down in the procedure up to now. I hope that it will go through smoothly. I think that the only people who have any right to complain are those who put their trust in the hon. Gentleman, and contributed to the funds of the Conservative Party.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)

I must apologise—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. There is no need for the House to be discourteous.

Mr. Peyton

I must apologise both to the House and to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) for not being here when he started his speech, but I congratulate myself on being here at least for the latter half of it, because it was a remarkable performance. I think that most of us, at least on this side of the House, are becoming dimly conscious of the fact that it happens from time to time, and of course the hon. Gentleman never seeks to delve too deeply into the subject under discussion. It is rather like a Punch and Judy show, with the punch left out.

The right hon. Gentleman will have to find—[Interruption.] The Patronage Secretary is seeking to take part in the debate. If anyone should hide his head in shame, particularly in his present difficulties, it is the Patronage Secretary. Decency forbids me to go into details about his recent conduct of affairs, which would embarrass him, so I will not do so, but I hope that he will take no further part in the debate without at least getting to his feet.

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale actually suggested that the Bill tries to deal, fundamentally and comprehensively—he is good at adverbs—with our transport problems. I defy him to say how it is either comprehensive or fundamental in its approach and to express his grounds for confidence that it contains any solution to the problems. I thought that I heard the hon. Gentleman accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) of running away from his principles. When Left-wing Socialists speak like that, one wonders what is coming next. So far as we know, the principles of the Left-wing are kept in some tabernacle upstairs and are only referred to, not acted upon, downstairs.

Without undue reverence, I hope, I come now to the speech of the Leader of the House. I am sorry that he is not here, because we all miss him, despite what we have said about him on the Order Paper. I understood the right hon. Gentleman, who has a great talent for misquoting other people, to infer that the Amendments had been put down to fall in with the wishes of the Opposition. A greater piece of nonsense than that has seldom passed the right hon. Gentleman's lips—and that is saying a lot. We know what happened. We finally extracted from him the fact that all he had done was ask whether we would like a new Motion. When the usual channels refused, he treated this as consultation and an exercise of the Opposition's preference between two alternatives.

I say to the Patronage Secretary, in the absence of his right hon. Friend, with whom he must have gone through many agonising hours lately, that it is unworthy to abuse the usual channels in this way. Even these days, and with this Administration, Members are disposed to put some confidence in the exchanges through the usual channels. If the Leader of the House is going to abuse his position by misquoting these negotiations, even by his standards he will be rendering the House a signal disservice.

He said that we were not opposing the principle of the Bill. That was an astonishing comment, since, if this Bill has a principle, I ask the Government to accept that we are opposed to it root and branch.

He then made some fanciful references to the "trimming of Members". I was not sure whether he was advocating pruning the Committee, but was eventually forced to the conclusion that he was talking about trimming the Bill. In advocating trimming the Bill, my hon. Friend was doing nothing but pursuing the dictates of common sense. We have never faced such a large volume as this Bill. I believe that the House has been shoddily treated throughout by the Government.

I know that the right hon. Lady is not unduly sensitive to these rebukes, of which she has had a good many, but the transport industry is in a state of fury. Traders of all kinds in my constituency have registered their severe disapproval and deep anxiety. What is most disquieting is that the Government show no reaction or concern. They are always arrogant to the last and are determined that they are right. They will hold to their opinion and take account of no views which conflict with their own.

We now face this bogus target of securing an integrated transport system. I wonder how many of my hon. Friends doubted, with me, whether the right hon. Gentleman had ever read the Bill. He made much of the fact that it was the way to secure an integrated system. I can remember, over many years now, saying that this target of an integrated system run by some non-existent genius in Whitehall was pie in the sky—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot discuss the merits of the Bill: we are discussing the merits of the guillotine.

Mr. Peyton

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I was concerned with what the right hon. Gentleman had said. He let loose the idea that he was convinced that the Bill would secure an integrated transport system and I allowed myself to be tempted momentarily away from discussing this Motion into reflecting once again upon the right hon. Gentleman's judgment.

The Government, he told us, felt obliged to ask for a timetable. I very restrainedly asked him why, when they had foreseen the necessity for a timetable on a controversial Measure, they had postponed it for so long. Why did they not make maximum use of the time, have Second Reading as soon as we came back, and send the Bill to Committee even in November? They would then have had a better excuse for asking to rush this through.

The Leader of the House is fond of the word "pejorative". When he is speaking, I feel that the words "fair" and "reasonable" become pejorative, because they are stood on their heads and do riot mean what they appear to mean. We stand accused by him of preventing good government. Good heavens, as if any one on this side has had the slightest chance in the last three or four years of preventing good government. There has not even been the possibility of preventing it. All that we have had is this unique combination of ineptitude and arrogance, culminating now in the creed, "We know best. We, in my Department, have hatched this wonderful scheme to integrate and render efficient the transport industry. We do not care for the views of the House of Commons or of the industry. We care for nothing except our own settled views."

The right hon. Gentleman rather spoiled his speech at the end. He was at his best today, because he treated a rotten case with that necessary mixture of levity and good manners which came as something of a surprise to us. This nevertheless made it possible for him to persuade us that he was not being entirely vicious to the Tory Party. When he addressed us with the adverb "frankly" we trembled as we recognised the trade mark of the Treasury Bench. The Prime Minister frequently prefaces his remarks with "frankly", but we have learned that he is less than frank.

It is regrettable that the Leader of the House should have introduced, in such an untidy manner, a guillotine to this fundamental Measure. It has not penetrated those sealed circles in which he moves that a large number of people detest the Bill and consider that the discussion of it is being curtailed intentionally by the Government. I do not know who is the villian of the piece, the Leader of the House or the Minister of Trans- port. The right hon. Gentleman seemed so urbane that we were bound to think that the right hon. Lady had put him up to it. As we listened to the right hon. Gentleman we thought that we were listening to the cynical inexactitudes of an elderly serpent, but if the right hon. Lady had put him up to it, she has an immense load of guilt on her shoulders which will never be removed from her as a result of the effects that the Bill will have. In restricting discussion on so montrous a piece of legislation, the right hon. Lady is writing her political death warrant and epitaph. I hope that the Government's sins will be visited heavily on their shoulders in future.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) used to be reasonably successful when he dealt with fuel matters, particularly coal. I do not suppose that he has ever carried 1 cwt of coal, but he used to tell the miners how to do it. At least he tried to teach himself something about coal mining, but I fear that he knows nothing about the problems of transport.

I worked in the transport industry for many years and I have been glad of the opportunity to serve on the Committee upstairs. I am finding it a rewarding experience and I am sure that success will crown our efforts. All the thousands of £s being gathered by the Road Haulage Association will not make any difference to the devoted work that my hon. Friends will put into considering the Bill and into making it law. For the first time we have a chance of getting a really integrated transport system, with the various facets of transport being welded together for the public good, both on the freight and passenger sides.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member must keep to the Motion. He cannot discuss the merits of the Bill.

Mr. Manuel

It might be thought that the guillotine will obstruct us and prevent us from giving the Bill sufficient consideration. I do not believe that. Instead, the various facets to which I referred will be welded together in the service of the public.

I regret that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) is not in his place. However, a back bencher, the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) has temporarily taken over and I wish him luck. He used to be on the Front Bench when Scottish affairs were being discussed. The hon. Member for Worcester tried to make us believe that he had been amenable, in the negotiations through the usual channels, to make arrangements for adequate discussion of the Bill. At the first sitting of the Committee the hon. Gentleman staked his claim for 500 hours, which would have meant a Committee stage of two years, sitting on the ordinary Tuesdays and Thursdays to which we are accustomed. Later the hon. Gentleman said that he would be willing to sit any number of hours the Government liked so that the Bill could be completed by June, although he did not say that it could be finished by 15th May.

The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) is not in his place. This is to be regretted because I have some caustic remarks to make about him. He suggested—and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), with his agile brain, will be interested in the figures I will be giving—that 50 hours a week could easily be worked in Committee. He elected to be the sacrificial lamb for the Liberal Party, throwing himself into the fight against the Bill. What would 50 hours a week mean to hon. Members?

Having done some calculations, it would mean that to get the Bill by the end of June, the Committee would have to sit on Mondays from 10.30 a.m. to 1 p.m. and then from 4 p.m. to 8 a.m.; one night lost. On Tuesdays we would start at 10.30 a.m. and, after adjourning at 1 p.m., restart at 4 p.m. and go through until 8 o'clock the following morning; another night lost. On Wednesdays we would again start at 10.30 a.m. and, after adjourning at 1 p.m., resume at 4 p.m. and continue to 8 o'clock the following morning. By that time we would have been out of bed for three nights, and on Thursday morning we would resume at 10.30 a.m. and carry on to 1 p.m. With time during the week to have only a shave each morning and a cup of tea, we would have worked 501 hours. How could we evolve sensible legislation when working under such intolerable conditions?

A great deal has been said about the starred Amendment which has appeared on the Order Paper and which, it has been claimed, has caused a lot of trouble. The Bill has always had safeguards within it regarding commercial practice and competitive tendering in the operation of railway workshops. Because of the suspicion of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, we have been trying to educate them in the many weeks in Committee, but they have still been reiterating the same points. They were so suspicious that my right hon. Friend brought in the Amendment that has been referred to so as to show in black and white that the workshops would be conducted economically and on a competitive tender basis. Since this is a concessionary Amendment, why do hon. Members opposite object to adopting it?

The Amendment would save time. It would knock out dozens of Amendments placed on the Notice Paper by hon. Members opposite with a view to establishing what this Amendment lays down. Why are they so afraid of it? I think it is because they have been trying to launch a great campaign and their intention has been to spin out discussions on the Bill while they were mounting that campaign in the country. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart made this perfectly clear in the most misleading article which he wrote in the Sunday Post. It was the most misleading and scandalous article by a Member of Parliament that I have ever read, and that is saying a lot.

I felt that I had to challenge him in Committee about the article, but he made no attempt to show that he wrote it with honesty of purpose. There has been a reply from a good friend of mine, the President of the Scottish Co-Operative Wholesale Society, who is now in another place. He gave a truer picture of what the Bill will accomplish. Last weekend the hon. Member addressed a huge rally of susceptible Young Conservatives in London. What he wrote in the Sunday Post was nothing compared with what he told them. He told those promising young Primrose Leaguers: This Socialist Government will bring into State ownership everything that moves. Presumably, he included the worms in the fields. This sort of overstatement is the hon. Member's great failing. He overstates his case repeatedly in Committee. I wish him well as a young Member of this House, and I have tried to help him on many occasions. I ask him to stop overstating and destroying his case.

Hon. Members opposite are in a great dilemma because now dozens of Amendments will be knocked out. They were to be the culmination of all the newspaper articles and of the employment of Mr. Murphy of the Road Haulage Association. These Amendments were to be introduced by the hon. Member for Worcester, the hon. Member for Cathcart, and the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), who has done well in the Committee. It is the first Committee on which he has sat and, although he started rather slowly, he has proved himself an able member now that he has got geared up. He was a little over-arrogant at times, but nevertheless I pay him the compliment that he has got down to the Bill. Between us we should not be bad opponents.

Mr. Michael Heseltine

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is too kind. I deeply appreciate what he said, but I must point out that this is not my first Committee. I have been a member of others.

Mr. Manuel

I am sorry; I was not aware of that. After a slow start, the hon. Member came to his full stride and he has been striding and talking longer every day since.

The culmination of the great campaign has gone up in smoke. In order to avoid more suspicion being spread, my right hon. Friend has put down this Amendment and now the Opposition has wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds. Many people have been gulled, and that is very sad. It is not the way to make Acts of Parliament, by stampeding people into fear of something awful happening to them. I am pleased that the guillotine is being introduced. I shall not mention any names, but I know some hon. Members opposite hoped that there would be a guillotine. Not every hon. Member opposite can cross his heart and say that he has not said this to me. When I have asked them why they said that, they have said "It was a great propaganda point. See how you used it in 1962. We would like to use it in the same way."

Another great cause for resentment among hon. Members opposite is that they hoped that the longer the Bill went on the greater would be the period in which they could try to recover prestige which they lost in Committee. There is one Liberal on the Committee, the hon. Member for Bodmin. I have helped him on one occasion. Strangely enough, he has captured all the key positions in the Bill by the skilful placing of Amendments. No hon. Member opposite can deny that in nearly every case the Tory Party has fallen behind the lone Liberal.

Mr. Anthony Berry (Southgate)

Is the hon. Member aware that some time next week I look forward to moving an Amendment to which the Government have attached names, and this is a very important part of the compromise Amendment mentioned this morning?

Mr. Manuel

That was not exactly the point I was dealing with. I thought that the hon. Member had been following me. I have given a lucid exposition of the Bill, which already contains safeguards because. of the directions the Minister can give. Because hon. Members opposite were so suspicious we have brought in this Amendment making it starkly clear to them that they need have no fear. Because they need have no fear, they are terribly disturbed because of all the money they have spent for nothing.

The Liberal Amendments have been placed at key posiions in the Bill. I am sorry that I had to make certain references to the hon. Member for Bodmin before he came into the Chamber. I cannot repeat them now that he has returned, I hope that he will read what I said. He suggested that by sitting 50½ hours a week we could finish the Bill by the end of June. That would mean sitting all night on three nights a week with time to get a cup of tea and a shave only from 8 o'clock until 10.30 each morning. When he reads what I have said, I think that he will find that it would not be practicable to ask hon. Members to legislate under such conditions of work which would be necessary if, with the support of the Tories, his suggestion had been carried into effect.

Mr. Michael Heseltine

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester made the offers to sit the necessary number of hours many weeks ago. If the Government had accepted the offers when they were first made, the burden on members of the Committee would not have been necessary. We are still prepared to sit those numbers of hours, because we believe that it is our duty to examine the Bill in detail, but we are to be precluded from doing so.

Mr. Manuel

The hon. Gentleman came in late, otherwise he would have known that I dealt with that point. I quoted chapter and verse for the request for 500 hours and for the promise to finish by the end of June. When the hon. Gentleman say my name on the Annunciator, he should have rushed in to hear my speech. As the hon. Gentleman is now in the Chamber, I will give the House an idea of the filibustering and time wasting which has been going on in the Committee by quoting the number of columns in the OFFICIAL REPORT taken up by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman is not on the Front Bench. Everybody knows that the Front Bench takes far more time than the back benches. The hon. Gentleman is an ordinary back bencher, sitting at the rear of the Committee Room, unassuming and quiet for most of the time. He took a little while to get into his stride. For the first six meetings he was getting geared up and watching points.

There is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is a capable Member, because he has made great strides. After remaining silent for the first six meetings, he began to take a vocal part in the proceedings and I now state for the House the number of columns that he has occupied in the OFFICIAL REPORT for the next 20 meetings: seventh meeting, 23 columns; eighth meeting, 13 columns; ninth meeting, 9 columns; tenth meeting, 26 columns; eleventh meeting, 9 columns; twelfth meeting, 31 columns; thirteenth meeting, 22 columns; fourteenth meeting, 32 columns; fifteenth meeting, 13 columns; sixteenth meeting. 7 columns; seventeenth meeting, 12 columns; eighteenth meeting, 4 columns; nineteenth meeting, 9 columns; and the twentieth meeting, 8 columns. I hope that no one will seek to tell me that that is a fair share-out for a back bencher who is taking a third-class rôle in the proceedings, remembering that the Front Bench opens, winds up, and moves Amendments and must consequently have a much larger share. The House will see that my hon. Friends and I can hardly get a word in edgeways.

Mr. Bessell

I apologise for not being here at the commencement of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but my absence was unavoidable. To be fair, the hon. Member for Tavistock was, and is at the moment, leading for his party.

Mr. Manuel

My point was that he was unassuming on the back benches. I want to close now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite are annoyed because I have made a successful speech and exposed their weaknesses and hypocrisies. My right hon. Friend the Minister has examined every Amendment. She adopts any Amendment which has value. However, no Amendment will corrupt the Bill to such an extent that the basic principles of proper integration will not take place. There will be integration. The Bill when enacted will be the most beneficial thing that has ever happened, for the benefit of the public of this country so far as a proper transport system is concerned.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. John Nott (St. Ives)

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) will have done enormous good to my party in the West Country. Many of my constituents will be delighted to learn from his speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) has been doing such a good job in the Committee. I am not a member of the Committee but I am delighted that my hon. Friend has been doing so well.

I protest against the Motion, not because I want to add fuel to party controversy on the issue, but because I want to explain in detail my very real concern about the effect the Bill will have upon outlying areas if it is taken through the House at the speed proposed in the Motion. The Leader of the House, by claiming that it was rich vested interests that opposed the Bill, cheapened the Government's case. In my part of the world the vested interests, which are considerable, are certainly not rich. They are the fishermen, the farmers, and the ordinary people living in an outlying area which will be very adversely affected by the Bill. Not one of them, as far as I know, is rich.

I want to go over a few vital arguments, because now, under the terms of the Motion, we shall not have the opportunity to make points affecting special parts of the country which we could have made had the Bill proceeded at the normal speed. I make no apology for referring to my constituency, because I believe that it will be more adversely affected by the Bill than practically any other. The Highlands of Scotland and the outlying areas of Wales may be equally badly affected, but the far South-West will be more adversely harmed than practically any other part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Manuel

Has the hon. Gentleman read the Clauses dealing with rural transport? Is he aware of the 50 per cent. subsidy which the Minister is prepared to grant for the first time? Thus transport in rural areas will have more help than it has ever had and will be able to run a transport system in those areas. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), who represents a rural area, acknowledges this.

Mr. Nott

I was not referring to individual Clauses. I was referring to the Bill as a whole and, in particular, Part V, which I have read, in regard to quantity licensing and drivers' hours. There are Clauses which I welcome. But on the hon. Gentleman's point, an enormous burden is placed on the rates in the far West by keeping services going throughout the winter months to have them available for tourists who treble our population in the summer months. The additional burden on the rates of keeping our branch lines open and making other provisions will be more difficult to bear in our part of the country than in practically any other.

I want to refer particularly to quantity licensing and drivers' hours. I had prepared for the Standing Committee a number of detailed Amendments which now, because of the Motion, I do not believe can be dealt with in Committee. According to the Motion, there will be only three days for Report, so I do not think that the detailed points which need to be discussed will be heard. I want, therefore, to make some of these points now—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

The hon. Gentleman cannot debate the Bill on the time-table Motion. He must relate his remarks to the Motion.

Mr. Nott

I will do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened to a long recitation from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) on how to deal with the Minister of Transport, on contributions to Tory Party funds, on government by White Paper, and to a whole host of other admirable topics which bore even less relation, if I am entitled to say so, to the Motion than the few remarks I was seeking to make. I am protesting about the curtailment of the debate because I do not believe that the very real and special interests of outlying areas will now have a proper hearing. It is in that connection that I want to make a short speech.

I shall take just two industries as examples of those which will not now be able to have their interests properly ventilated. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House asks "Why?". The answer is that I am sure that there will not be time, if the Committee stage ends on 15th May, for all the Amendments to Part V to be properly debated in Committee, nor will there be time on Report to deal with these matters during the three days available.

To quote the first example, the fishing industry exists in West Cornwall because of the flexibility of road transport. There is not the slightest doubt that if the transport of fish from Cornwall is forced on to the railways under Part V the fishing industry will simply disappear.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the whole essence of the new quantity licensing proposals depends on the existence of freight liner terminals in his part of the country. If he studies the existing and proposed freight liner grid he will not find a freight liner terminal in his part of the country.

Mr. Nott

I know more about the freight liner terminals in my part of the country than the hon. Gentleman does. There is no freight liner terminal within 60 miles of the area to which I am referring.

Mr. Huckfield

Exactly. That is my point.

Mr. Nott

Is the hon. Gentleman saying then that because there is no freight liner terminal the Ministry will not prevent a quantity licence for the carriage of fish?

Mr. Huckfield

If the hon. Gentleman reads both the Committee proceedings and some of the assurances given on Second Reading he will see that this has already been said.

Mr. Nott

I have not read all the Committee HANSARDS, but I have had a lengthy correspondence with the Minister. Nothing has yet been said there or in Committee which gives any assurance in respect of two of the principal industries upon which my constituency depends—fishing and horticulture.

Mr. Manuel

I too have been taking a very active interest in this aspect. I am aware of fairly large areas where there are no rail connections of any kind and where operators of vehicles going over 100 miles, and of 16 tons weight, will be able to ask for and automatically obtain their licences. But where a railhead could be used, or there is a short haul to a freight liner depôt, and British Rail object to the load going by road, it must prove three things before getting it—reliability, speed and cost. The hon. Gentleman should not start shaking his head. Does he not know the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think that both hon. Members are doing what I ruled out of order, which was a detailed discussion of the Bill. We are discussing a timetable Motion, and all remarks must be related to it.

Mr. Manuel

With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Gentleman, who has so courteously given way, said in introducing the quantity licensing question that he feared that the guillotine would not allow proper discussion of it. On that matter, I suggest that he was perfectly in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman's opening remarks were perfectly in order. What he failed to do was to keep in order, because he went into detail about the issues, and he cannot do that on the timetable Motion.

Mr. Nott

I am well aware of the points the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) makes, that the railways must prove these three things.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

They do not have to.

Mr. Nott

I cannot debate this now. I shall talk about it with the hon. Gentleman afterwards, because it is out of order to discuss it now.

The point I am trying to make is that there are very special interests in particular parts of the country which already have a higher cost of living than the metropolitan areas and are already poorer than those areas. Those special interests will not get a proper hearing as as result of the Motion. I cannot see that it is conceivable that there will be more than a few days' debate on this vitally important matter under Part V. The Bill fundamentally affects the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of people in the outlying areas, and their livelihood will not now be the subject of debate as the Bill passes through Parliament.

A likelihood that the railways will not object to quantity licences being given for transport in the outlying areas is not very much comfort to us. What we hoped to do before the guillotine Motion was introduced was to table Amendments on the relevant Clauses in Part V and obtain assurances from the Minister that she understood our particular problems and would give guidance on the granting or non-granting of quantity licences for the interests which concern us now. Now we shall rush through this part of the Bill—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

rose—

Mr. Nott

I shall not give way again. I have done so several times already. We shall not now have a full debate on those aspects of the Bill. That is why I strongly object to the Motion.

Mr. Huckfield

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way for the third time. I think that he rather misunderstands the main provisions of the Bill, because as I see it the only thing that will affect this part of the country is the wear and tear and abnormal load charge. The quantity licensing provisions stay basically the same.

Mr. Nott

That is not the case, and that is why I object to the Motion so much. I know Nuneaton and I go up there fairly frequently. It is clear that the hon. Member for Nuneaton has not the slightest idea about this Bill although he is on the Committee—

Mr. Huckfield

rose—

Mr. Nott

I shall not give way again. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not the slightest idea how the Bill will affect the outlying areas. By making that remark and saying that there is only one aspect of it which affects us—the wear and tear charge—he is displaying the ignorance of hon. Members, even on the Committee, of how the Bill will affect such areas.

There are all sorts of other aspects of the Bill which will not be able to be properly debated—

Mr. Huckfield

On a point of order. I sincerely suggest that the hon. Gentleman is misleading the House, because before I came to the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not use a point of order to make a contribution to the debate.

Mr. Nott

I also object to the Motion because probably we shall not now have a chance of a full debate on Report on drivers' hours. This is another matter on which a full debate was needed. I make no excuse for referring to my constituency. I do not always make constituency speeches, but I believe that the Bill affects my constituency far worse than any other in the whole country, and I am very concerned about it. I hope that the comments of the Leader of the House about rich vested interests opposing the Bill will appear in my local Press next week. There may be rich vested interests opposing the Bill, but it is basically the poor vested interests in my constituency that are most upset by it—the fishermen, horticulturists and others in an area with lower incomes than any other. These are the subjects which will be adversely affected by the Bill and that is why I protest against the curtailment of the proceedings.

We shall not be able fully to debate the question of drivers' hours. This is a vital matter for my part of the country because there are no mass metropolitan markets within 300 miles of the producers there. The only market within 100 miles of my constituency is Plymouth. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Bristol?"] Bristol is closer to Dover than to my constituency. It is nearly 200 miles away. I do not think that hon. Members opposite have any conception of what they are talking about. The nearest metropolitan markets to my constituency are 300 miles away. Yet we shall not be able fully to debate the question of drivers' hours.

Mr. Bessell

I am in complete agreement with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Does not he agree that the issues of the Freight Corporation, the establishment of passenger transport authorities and of the National Bus Company, and quantity licensing, quite apart from quality licensing, will considerably affect all parts of Cornwall?

Mr. Nott

I entirely agree. I am glad the hon. Gentleman intervened because I find it frightening that a member of the Labour Party sitting in the Committee is so ignorant of the way in which this Bill is going to affect outlying areas of the country. But after the interruptions I have had from hon. Members opposite, I want to come back to the curtailment of the proceedings and the timing chosen. I want to give an example of the sort of Amendments which would have been tabled in Committee and fully debated had not this Motion been brought forward.

We would have been able to table Amendments dealing with the fishing industry, but I doubt now whether, if we did, these could be called in the time that is to be available. We would have been able to show that, if the railways were to succeed in their objections to the carriage of fish by refrigerated lorries, the cost of carrying fish would go up by about 400 per cent. on the railways. No doubt, we shall be told that quantity licences will be granted to someone carrying fish by lorry if the railways were 400 per cent. more expensive. But what we fear is that the railways will quote a lower price, which they are able to do because their prices for fish go up 50 per cent. one day and come down 20 per cent. the next.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Once again the hon. Gentleman is going into too much detail on the Bill itself.

Mr. Nott

I will come back to the time-tabling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we had had the time in Committee to table Amendments relating to the fishing industry, and a reasonable chance of their being called, and if on Report we had been given a chance to do the same, this point would not have arisen in this debate.

The Motion will be regarded as a serious curtailment of the right of the House fully to discuss the interests of my part of the country. My constituents will not regard the Motion in the favourable terms in which the hon. Member for Nuneaton regards it. It is a curtailment of the right of their representatives to discuss fully how each industry in their part of the world will be affected.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens)

When we were in opposition we used just the same arguments when the Conservative Government brought forward guillotine Motions.

Mr. Nott

I am not referring to what the Conservative Administration did but to the fact that, in this case, as a new Member of Parliament, I object to not being given the opportunity of a longer Report stage in which to move Amendments—I do not see how in three days such Amendments could be called—and thereby show the effects of the Bill on industries in my constituency.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

Representing a constituency as remote from the industrial centres as the hon. Gentleman's, I am at a loss to understand how he can think he is assisting these parts of the country by such gross exaggeration of the effects of the Bill. If he understood the provisions of the Bill, as he obviously does not, he would not find it necessary to put down phoney Amendments to safeguard situations which are not in fact threatened by the Bill.

Mr. Nott

But such assurances I would like to have heard from the Minister herself, in Committee or in the House, as a result of Amendments put down to cover these industries. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. He has a constituency with many of the same prob- lems. But none of these assurances has been forthcoming from the right hon. Lady. If the hon. Gentleman is right, then it is only necessary for the right hon. Lady to write me a letter in reply to one from me and tell me that my fears are unjustified.

Mr. Maclennan

The hon. Gentleman says that he has read at least part of the proceedings in Committee. Has he read the White Papers produced by the Ministry? Could anything be more clear than those White Papers about the protections written into the Bill?

Mr. Nott

The hon. Gentleman is not correct. The protections are not clear in the White Papers and that is why I object to this Motion, for it will not give sufficient time to clear up these matters.

Mr. Crossman

The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly mentioned that he will be very limited on Report. We shall discuss that aspect more fully when we reach the Amendments, but I would point out to him that, as a result of Government Amendments which we shall move, on the Report stage, which is to last three days—which is as long as anyone has ever had before—we are giving five and a half hours extra each day. That is tantamount to two extra days. He will therefore find that his complaint has been largely met in terms of time and that he will have every reasonable chance of his Amendments being discussed on the Report stage under the unique arrangements which we are making for the Bill.

Mr. Nott

If the Report stage is longer than usual that is only right in a situation in which my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has asked for a great number of additional hours for the Committee stage, which is being sharply curtailed. I am saying that, since these points which I want to see discussed in Committee will not be discussed in Committee, then the Report stage should be considerably longer than is intended in the guillotine Motion.

I had no opportunity to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill which affects my constituency in the most catastrophic way. The Leader of the House is not correct when he says that we have no reason to fear it. People of every party, and of no party, in my county fear the Bill. I have read the White Papers on the Bill. I have not read all the proceedings of the Committee stage, but we do have a great deal to fear from it.

On a matter of this nature, seriously affecting the livelihood of practically every person in an area which is already the poorest in the United Kingdom, we should have had a full debate. It is the Minister's reluctance even to answer our inquiries, even to give us the assurances for which we ask, that makes us most concerned. If we have nothing to worry about, it would be quite simple for the Minister to answer our letters, the letters from the N.F.U. and the fishing industry, and give us the assurances we seek. Then we would at least be in part content.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mahon (Preston, South)

I trust that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his speech, except to say that I feel that many of his anxieties are exaggerated. He would do well to accept the advice of my right hon. Friend, that many of his fears will prove unfounded. I would prefer to refer to one or two things which my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) had to say. He said that many Members had approached him with a view to being placed on the Committee. He added that he had acceded to their requests, and said a little prayer for them. I asked to be allowed to serve on the Committee and have no misgivings at all. I am very happy about being able to do so and I feel that for my service I might earn a remission of my purgatory.

Indeed, having listened to so many unenlightened speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite in Committee, I might even be a fortnight in Heaven before the Devil knows that I am dead. It has been interesting to reflect on the words of my hon. Friend, for whom I have a very high regard. Despite his admonitions and misgivings, I would say that the opposition that has come our way has nothing to do with the limitation of time, in other words, nine is not the problem.

The rub of the situation is that the Opposition do not like this Bill, to put it very mildly. They are ruthlessly oppose to it, they detest it. As the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) recalled, in generous vein, I have said that hon. Members were entitled to say what they want to say. He forgot to add that I have also been saying during our deliberations that hon. Members were taking an inordinate amount of time in Committee. We have needed the patience of Job. There has been a flagrant abuse of Parliamentary time.

At times the proceedings were anything but businesslike. Because we have had so little time to speak, we can only lay the blame for the waste of time at the door of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We want this Bill and intend to have it, and that is the reason for our patience. An integrated transport system is a promise that we have made to the nation, and we need to redeem that promise and intend to use the guillotine. We make no apology for doing so in order to ensure fair play.

The hon. Member for St. Ives made a rather querulous speech. That prerogative belongs to Members on this side of the House, because we have not had fair play in Committee. We have not had the opportunity to express our own point of view, and it is equitable and just that we should have the time. Now that we intend to use the guillotine we shall have this in the fullness of time. The objections to the Bill have used up most of the time, and there cannot be any argument or dubiety about that. I often felt that hon. Members opposite were deliberately shutting us out of the discussion. It is not fair to us, it is not fair to themselves and not fair to Parliament; and it is certainly not just and equitable to the people outside whose interests they tell us they have so much at heart.

The guillotine was a "must" if we were to be given the opportunity of having a reasonable say in the deliberations. Without this Bill Britain in the near future will grind to a halt. Without this Bill there will no be economic recovery in our land. Difficulties, yes, but when was there a time when we have not had difficulties? Difficulties make giants and the difficulties will be overcome. Without the guillotine, without the Bill, there will be and there will continue to be a great measure of social injustice, and we believe that we have done no injustice at all.

We are being eminently just in our belief that it was absolutely necessary to have the guillotine in order to forward the discussion on this tremendous Bill in an equitable, fair and just manner.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a member of the Committee I have had to listen to quite a number of speeches which have been both amazing and irresponsible, and sitting here listening to this debate has been no change. We have just heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) talking of all the complaints he has of the Committee. First of all, that there has been time wasting. Those who are members of the Committee will be well aware that the chief exponent of that has been the hon. Gentleman himself. He has consistently intervened on spurious points of order to such an extent that he has been censored by the Chairman, as hon. Members know. He has said that hon. Members on the Conservative side were shutting out the Government Members on the Committee. He must know that that is rubbish. Let him look at the columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates up to the time the guillotine was announced.

Mr. Spriggs

Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. Are we debating the guillotine Motion or the behaviour of the Committee upstairs?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. So far he has not said anything that is out of order. I shall continue to listen carefully.

Mr. Taylor

As to how responsible hon. Gentlemen on the other side have been, I would ask the hon. Member for Preston, South to note that up to the time the guillotine was announced the Conservative members of the Committee, with all the persuasion and force at their command, and all their fears, took up 5,395 columns. The hon. Gentleman said Opposition members of the Committee have sought to shut out Government members who were anxious to get the Bill through. How many column inches did Government speakers take up? They took 3,960—only about 30 per cent. less than the Opposition took.

Mr. Peter Mahon

I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to perpetrate an injustice even though I am the victim. He speaks of admonitions by the Chairman of the Committee. I will leave hon. Members on both sides who are members of the Committee to judge who has been the particular culprit in that regard. The hon. Gentleman has come under the hammer, as will, I believe, be verified in loud acclaim, by members of the Committee. He has shown more pique and bad temper than anyone and has spoiled our happiness on a great number of occasions.

Mr. Taylor

I cannot pursue that point. The hon. Gentleman knows that I was called to order by the Chairman only once, and that was for eating oranges.

If there was ever an argument against this guillotine, it was that advanced in the three interruptions of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). The reason why we must have more time than this Motion allows is because the Bill is not sufficiently known even to members of the Committee.

In a splendid intervention, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huck-field) said that British Railways would have to prove that they were more speedy, reliable and efficient if they were successfully to oppose a licence application. If he has read the Bill, he must know from Clause 70 that it is not up to them at all. The onus is upon the road haulier. It is not a matter of the Railways proving anything. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not know the Bill, although he is a member of the Committee. That fact alone shows how obvious is the need for more time to discuss it.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the final decision on this sort of matter rests with the licensing authority and not with British Railways?

Mr. Taylor

That is again proof of how ludicrous the position is. The hon. Gentleman has been sitting in the Committee and listening to our deliberations; yet he says that it is up to the licensing authority. Does he not appreciate that the authority has to interpret the Bill as it is and that the Bill does not leave it to the licensing authority? It says that if there is any doubt it is the road haulier who must prove himself and not the Railways Board.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is now getting into too much detail about the Bill itself. I hope that he will confine his remarks to the guillotine Motion.

Mr. Taylor

I will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and one of the principal arguments against the Motion is that because of the time that we have had and the speed with which we have gone through our business hon. Members opposite do not know the Bill. We think that they need time to study it carefully and to understand the dangers in it. Most important of all, the public needs more time to appreciate the dangers in this massive Bill. We must have more time than will be possible if we are obliged to conclude the proceedings in Committee by 15th May.

Other examples have been given. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) always makes a habit of attacking me in the Committee, quite unjustifiably. However, he is not here now, so I will say no more about it.

The one good thing that may come out of the Motion is that it has given the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) the opportunity to support the Government, which is something that he rarely does. He usually criticises the Government for what they do. All that he has done today is to accuse them of being more Tory than the Liberal member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell). We know why the hon. Gentleman supports his right hon. and hon. Friends. It is because he approves of the Bill completely. It is what his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would call another giant stride towards Socialism.

What do we have to prove to stop this Motion going forward? We have proved beyond doubt that there has been no filibustering in the Committee. Admittedly, there have been tough debates. We have gone into all the issues carefully, trying to protect our constituents. But there has been no filibustering, as all speakers from this side of the House have testified. In addition, there has been no endeavour from the Government side to say that there has been.

Do we have to prove that the Bill is important? We know that it is a vital Measure. I was impressed to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) earlier. He said that when first he saw the Bill just before Christmas he knew that it would not be possible for it to be reasonably debated, even assuming that every minute of a three-day week was given to it. However, the Leader of the House is not even trying to give us an opportunity to debate it reasonably. He is giving us an intolerably short time to discuss what is a massive Bill.

The Bill is too big for this kind of Motion. It is about the most massive Measure ever to come before Parliament. Certainly it is the largest one that I have seen in my three years in this House. It has enormous powers, including enormous spending powers. In view of the situation in the money market today and in view of the position of sterling, is it reasonable to ask us to go through three-quarters of the Bill by the 15th May and carefully discuss provisions which involve the direct spending of taxpayers' money on write-offs of capital, loans, subsidies and grants of £1,900 million, quite apart from the additional damage that it will do in raising costs and in other ways. Does he seriously think that he can suggest to the House that we should go in detail through three-quarters of this Bill involving such an enormous amount of discussion and spending?

We had the question of it being too late. The Bill has come too late to the Committee, but this is not our fault. We should not have an unreasonable Guillotine imposed because of this. This is the fault of the Government. It is their responsibility.

The most ludicrous argument has been that we could not have a full discussion because it would mean too many hours per week. We have made clear that we are only too glad to discuss this at length with late night and all night sittings, if need be, to make sure that the Bill is properly discussed.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to read his speech made on the first sitting of the Committee, when he was opposed to Wednesday afternoon sittings.

Mr. Taylor

I did not vote against it. I pointed out some of the difficulties of the Scottish Members. I am prepared, if there is any doubt in the hon. Gentleman's mind, to sit day and night. The hon. Gentleman has made two terrible mistakes this afternoon. He should keep quiet and not make any more, because his constituents will throw against him his scandalous attitude to a Bill which will seriously affect them. He should appreciate that we are only too glad to sit day and night so long as we have an opportunity of going through the Bill in detail carefully and sensibly without filibustering. We are told that 40 or 50 hours a week is too long. Does the Leader of the House appreciate that within the Bill we are making provision for drivers to have a working week not of 40 or 50 hours, but of 60 hours? Is he seriously saying that on this vital Bill we should not be able to work the same working week in Committee as drivers? [Interruption.] This is a very serious point. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to have a Bill rushed through—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

The hon. Gentleman is talking out of the back of his head. He knows as well as I do that every active Member in this House—I say "active Member"—works far more than 60 hours a week now.

Mr. Taylor

I would not contest that for a moment, but the hon. Gentleman knows that if there were an important Bill which he felt was dangerous for his constituents and against our national interests he would find the time—perhaps by getting other hon. Members to take up certain of his duties. We are saying that we will make the time available, but the Government are not prepared to do it. The result will be that large chunks of the Bill will not be properly discussed.

I wonder who has been fighting for us? The Leader of the House referred to a collective decision. He said that the Bill had been held up because of a collective decision and Cabinet discussion. This guillotine Motion was obviously a collective decision on the part of the Government. We wonder who in the Cabinet was fighting for the people. When we bear in mind that large chunks of the Bill, which could have devastating implications for Scotland and its industry, will not be discussed, we wonder whether the Secretary of State was fighting for freedom of expression and free discussion on this Bill as he has fought on so many guillotine Motions before.

The Government do not want a full and adequate discussion on the Bill because this would give adequate opportunity for the people to be told the facts about it. If this is such an important matter, who is welcoming the Bill? Who is pleading for us to rush it through the House of Commons? We have destroyed every single argument which could be put forward for a guillotine. There has been no filibustering. We have offered to provide the time. We have suggested that parts can be taken from the Bill. What more do we have to do to avoid a guillotine?

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale asked why, if we are so opposed, are we being so reasonable? There are different ways of opposing a Bill. We could try to be wreckers or try to hold up discussion, but we should know that a guillotine would come along and we would have little time for discussion. We decided to try to do this reasonably for one reason only, namely, so that we could have the maximum possible time to go into the Bill and suggest changes. If there has been any waste of time, we have not been responsible for it.

Having said that, I must qualify it by saying that there was one occasion on which time was wasted. I am referring now to the long discussion that we had about the financial disciplines which should be imposed on nationalised undertakings when they go into free competition. We wasted a lot of time on this, but we obtained a concession this morning, by way of a manuscript Amendment. If this Amendment had been tabled at the beginning, many valuable hours could have been saved.

This Bill could have devastating implications for the regions. It will affect tax payers and ratepayers. It will affect thousands of jobs, and it will affect prices. In spite of that, the Government have brought forward this Motion. They have introduced the guillotine despite our cooperation, and despite our efforts. It is the most irresponsible action that we have seen by the Government, and I hope that hon. Members, irrespective of their political beliefs, will prevent the Government from doing something which is savage, dishonest, and disreputable, and something which will be very much against t le interests of our nation. I hope that the Motion will be strongly opposed, to make sure that it is thrown out.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn)

I hope that other hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate will find an opportunity to do so during the discussions on the Amendments which have been selected.

I start by referring to what I thought was a most valuable contribution to the debate, the speech of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), who is the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. It was clear from what he said that he had worked out the time that it could be expected the Bill would take in Committee. His estimate, without any delaying, accords with what has happened in in the Committtee so far. I think that right hon. and hon. Members must have been impressed to learn that the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, in selecting us to serve on Committees, is so conscientious and painstaking in his examination of the situations with which he was confronting us. The Government should have followed his advice. They should have divided the Bill into at least three Measures, as he suggested, and they should now follow his advice and withdraw the Motion. Has there even been an occasion when a distinguished Member of the House, holding such a key position, has expressed such views on a particular time-table Motion? I believe that his action is unprecedented, and I therefore urge the Government to consider carefully what he said.

In eight weeks the Committee considered 44 Clauses, and 6 Schedules. That was good progress by any standards. If we accept the Motion, we will be left with only seven working weeks in which to consider the remaining 125 Clauses, and 12 Schedules, together with new Clauses to which large sections of trade and industry attach importance. In 22 sittings the Committee reached Clause 45. Perhaps we might compare that with what happened to the 1962 Transport Bill, when, in 21 sittings, the Committee reached only Clause 13. There was, therefore, then justification for a time-table on that Bill. That Bill went into Committee well before Christmas 1961.

I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland is here. The other Measure which was time-tabled at the same time as the 1962 Transport Bill was the Scottish Housing Bill. At its 14th sitting, that Committee had reached only Clause 2, and the right hon. Gentleman, who contributed much to the discussion, was largely responsible. If that performance is compared with ours on the. Transport Bill, the House can draw its own conclusions.

This situation is entirely different. There has been no filibustering. There was one closure on the Sittings Motion at our first sitting, which was moved immediately after the Minister's speech, giving no one else a chance to comment. But there have been no closures moved on debates on the Bill itself. Parliament has therefore been placed in a deplorable situation, because far too much has been crammed into one Bill which was introduced too late. The Committee began work only on 23rd January. As a result, neither the Committee nor the House will have enough time to consider proposals which cover an enormous range of subjects and are vague, ambiguous, and unclear in their effects.

The Bill should have been split and some parts postponed to a later Bill or Bills, because some could easily have waited. The quantity licensing to restrict large lorries on journeys over 100 miles or when carrying certain bulk loads any distance has caused great concern, not just among the hauliers, but throughout trade and industry, which is accentuated by the news of the guillotine. People are asking whether there will be enough time to consider these proposals and whether all the Amendments and Clauses will be discussed before the chopper falls.

The quantity of licensing proposals, the two new taxes and the inflexibility of drivers' hours have created well-founded objections from bodies representing almost every activity, particularly in Scotland. The more remote Scottish local authorities are particularly worried. They have been active in recent years in encouraging industry and employment and they are worried that many of the key Amendments which would have such an effect for Scotland will never be reached. This is a deplorable situation for which the Leader of the House must be held responsible.

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) referred to White Papers. The White Paper on Freight, the part which mainly worries trade and industry, appeared in November, only a short time before the Bill came out in December, leaving very little time for consideration. And in at least one important respect, the Bill differed from the White Paper.

The right hon. Gentleman's speech was amusing although flippant, and I enjoyed it, as I think did the whole House, but there was one great flaw in it. He equated Parliamentary opposition with filibustering and filibustering with fighting. I disagree entirely, and I am disappointed that he, of all people, should support filibustering as opposed to orderly, Parliamentary debate, however deeply one is concerned about the subjects. I would have expected him to favour logical discussion and the weighing of facts, and the arguments and views expressed. I would also have expected him, as an editor, to have considered the influencing and informing of public opinion to play an important part.

While I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on many things, I would have thought that he would have favoured cerebral processesses and not have become a declared advocate of filibustering as a way of expressing opposition and achieving changes in legislation. Although he made an amusing speech, that is what he was advocating, which is quite different from what he said in a previous debate, when he stated: … once we have a timetable all the interplay of free debate is gone. Every hon. Member knows this; I do not say that our debates are models of dynamic intercourse … but the introduction of a guillotine makes them all the worse".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1962; Vol. 652, c. 456.] I give the hon. Gentleman credit for contributing to the dynamic intercourse of our debates, but, regrettably, on this occasion, he gave way to wit rather than logic.

The Motion appeared on the Notice Paper only yesterday and several Government Amendments, at which complaints have been levelled, appeared only today. Three of these Amendments seem to be on the Notice Paper only because the Leader of the House has forgotten the Order of 12th December on Sittings of the House, on one of his own recent proposals concerning the carry-over of business to 10 o'clock the next morning. However, for sheer exuberant irresponsibility, his hon. Friends behind him have excelled because in Early Day Motion 197, which appeared before the right hon. Gentleman's Motion and which was signed by 111 hon. Gentlemen, it was stated: The House welcomes the decision of the Leader of the House "— and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has decided to leave the Chamber at this moment.

Hon. Members

He cannot take it.

Mr. Campbell

The Motion continued: to propose a timetable Motion in pursuance of Standing Order 67. Many of us immediately wondered what would come the following day because we were expecting a timetable Motion either under Standing Order 43 or 43(a). We wondered if we would have the old or new procedure. But Standing Order 67 was subsidiary and irrelevant and, when the Motion appeared, it was proceeding under Standing Order 43.

Almost 130 hon. Gentlemen opposite have signed this Motion and it is a matter of regret that so many hon. Members should have signed a Motion supporting steam roller methods of forcing through a Bill of a size unexampled since the 1930s. It is also a matter of ridicule that they should have been misled into putting their names to a Motion thinking that the Leader of the House would take certain action when so many of them have been proved wrong and have not, even on this subject, known what the Government were doing.

Let us consider the relationship between the time-table and the parts of the Bill which the Committee has not yet reached. There are a wide variety of subjects in the various Clauses yet to be considered and we will not have sufficient time in which to consider them properly. Without going into details, some of them are headed "Bridges, level crossings, etc.," "Inland waterways," "Regulation of road traffic" and "Miscellaneous and general", a part of the Bill with 21 Clauses, for good measure. Will we have enough time to consider those provisions?

Then there is the reorganisation of the nationalised bodies and the new powers they are being given. There is also the question of drivers' hours, about which the Committee will wish to discuss the important question of safety, but also in relation to flexibility to ensure that the Measure will not cripple and cramp trade and industry.

What would happen if a driver arrived 10 miles from a port and his time ran out? Is he then to stop, is he to miss a ship, thus missing a delivery date to which a firm is committed? This is the kind of problem which trade and industry are worried about and which must have proper discussion and be clarified by the Government, if we have time to reach this sort of point under the timetable.

In addition to the sections I have mentioned, there is the whole question of altering the system of road carrier licensing. After the Geddes Report it was expected that there would be a change in the system, but it was not expected to be put in with everything else in this indigestible pudding of a Bill. Time is needed to consider the quality licensing proposals to try to iron out the anomalies which will arise under the present proposals and to try to reduce the red tape and bureaucracy they contain. There must be time for this in Committee because these are very much Committee points.

The quantity licensing proposals have raised serious objections and apprehensions of so many people all over the country representing not only trade and industry but many activities, employers, trade unions and so on. The Government have said that the fears which have arisen are unnecessary, but again we need time to enable the Government to explain why the fears and apprehensions of so many people are unfounded.

There is the whole procedure of objections. It is a complicated one which those outside the House have been quite unable i o understand so far. There is the whole question of whether international journeys are affected, journeys which start or end outside this country. Do they come within the scope or not? There are complicated transitional arrangements because the old and the new systems are to run together for some years. This needs sorting out and explanation is needed in Committee. The Amendmets will enable this to be done and will enable alterations to be made.

There are two new taxes in the Bill, the wear-and-tear tax and the abnormal loads tax. These affect very important sections of trade and industry, particularly those in the export trade. The Minister said that she is considering a concession on the abnormal loads tax, but there has been no sign of it so far. Will she say whether it will appear in the next two weeks? We shall be on to that section of the Bill in about two weeks' time if this is the sort of timetable under which we are to work. We have put down Amendments which would help the hon. Lady. Perhaps she will tell us which of those Amendments she would agree to. We should like to abolish the tax altogether; at least, its effects should be "mitigated"—to use the Government's expression.

This tax will cover such a wide range of persons and activities that I do not believe even the Government understand how much is affected. Do they realise that at present the driver of a combine harvester moving from one field to another would have to give notice and pay a fee before it could be moved? Are the Government aware that road-mending and road-building equipment is of such size that unless exempted, it would need notice to be given and a fee paid when it is moved along a bit of road doing a job? This is the sort of anomaly which needs to be put right, and we need time to do that.

I am sure that the Government do not even realise how much is covered by the Bill. For example, Gipsy Moth IV went round the Horn and round the world, but to go from the Boat Show to Greenwich at the end, a tax would have had to have been paid, because of the dimensions of the beam, which exceeds the dimensions prescribed in the Bill. Such points as these need to be sorted out, because, if a boat which went round the world without paying such a tax now has to pay a tax on that journey, it shows that any boats of a similar or larger size being sent for export would be hit by the tax.

The extra cost, the restrictions, the uncertainty, and the loss of flexibility, could seriously dislocate trade and industry. None of these freight proposals has been reached yet in Committee. All the proposals concerning freight are still to come and must fall within the period which the timetable covers. This is of great concern to Scotland. I hope that the Leader of the House is listening to this point. I know that there are other parts of the Bill which are causing grave concern and would, if not changed, cause damage in England and Wales, because the Government seem to be following a Socialist principle, which we have now come to know quite well, of meting out equal misery to all. It is about these freight proposals that so many people in Scotland are worried and concerned. They are worried now particularly that there is not to be enough time for them to be considered, because the freight proposals are in the latter part of the Bill, and, therefore, must fall under the guillotine.

The measures on quantity control, for example, are thought in Scotland to be a counter-development measure, because they and the taxes make distances more expensive. If the Minister thinks that she has the answers to matters such as these, she must want time in Committee and on the Floor of the House to explain them.

The Bill, so enormous, has other interesting parts to it. We are at the moment on the nationalisation Clause. There is also, I point out to those who may not have had the chance to examine it, what is known as a Henry VIII Clause. The right hon. Lady is following an interesting historical line in this—that is, the kind of Clause which empowers the Government to alter by regulation provisions in the Bill after it has been enacted. This is the kind of matter which parliamentarians always want to discuss at length. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale would wish to join in this kind of discussion. Again, that Clause may fall under the guillotine before it has been reached.

Then there is an incredible number of provisions for orders and regulations under the Bill. They will flow in vast torrents and reams of paper. I warn my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), if he is not aware of this, that he will be burning much midnight oil, as he takes such an interest in Statutory Instruments and Orders, when the torrents begin after the Bill has been enacted, if it is. Provision for delegated legislation is something which right hon. and hon. Members would wish to examine carefully and would wish to be examined carefully by the Standing Committee. It is doubtful whether we shall have time under the time table.

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) tried to give the impression that the Conservative Party, both in the House and outside, was whipping up fears and opposition to the Bill. I assure him that there was no need for that. I have been concentrating on the freight side of the Bill. People outside the House know that, too. It has been the other way round: we have been the recipients of representations on an almost unprecedented scale from trade and industry, which were worried from last summer when the right hon. Lady made some of her main proposals known to them before the White Papers appeared. They were alarmed about the effects not only on their own businesses but on the economy of the country as a whole.

In the past the right hon. Lady has expressed different views about time-table Motions. She ended a speech against a time-table Motion on the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, with the following lines: None ever feared that the truth should be heard but he whom the truth would indict.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1962; Vol. 652, c. 481.] That is as true today as it was in 1962 and 100 years ago.

The Press often reminds us that the Minister of Transport cannot and does not drive a motor vehicle. But today it is clear that there is one vehicle she can drive. We have heard the ominous rumbling of the wheels. The vehicle that she drives is the tumbril, lurching towards the guillotine with a large number of hon. Members opposite pushing it along from behind. But not the Leader of the House. He is accident prone. He has accelerated himself up a wrong turning, and he has been consistently wrong today. The right hon. Gentleman talked today about the time we could have had before Christmas. He said that it could have been only two weeks, but we all know that it could have been more, because other Bills were able to have more than two weeks. He said that if it had been two weeks we could have had four extra sittings. Has he forgotten that the Committee has been sitting three times a week? That would have given six extra sittings.

It is this ignorance of what has been going on in Committee and what is needed for the Bill to have full consideration that causes us on this side of the House to deplore his action today and to oppose it. He should never have agreed to introduce this gigantic Bill so late in the Session, and never have been persuaded by the right hon. Lady to impose a timetable on this massive and ill-conceived Bill.

9.18 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mrs. Barbara Castle)

Anyone who heard the outcry with which the debate was launched would agree that it was the clearest demonstration we could hope to have that a guillotine on the Bill was inevitable. We had at the outset a combination of farce and filibustering by hon. Gentlemen opposite on points of order designed to waste time in the name of demanding more. This was followed by a series of explosions of indignation so volatile that they fastened indiscriminately on Government concessions and Government resistances.

Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I, having once again, in our co-operativeness and innocence, tried to meet what we thought were legitimate points made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, found ourselves in the middle of a storm of denigration for allegedly having somehow double-crossed the other side. This has been an experience which I have gone through more than once in the Committee. During the debate some hon. Members have tried to make a great deal of the fact that on the Order Paper for the Committee this morning appeared a Government Amendment designed to go some way towards meeting the points we had assumed they had seriously raised. But, lo and behold, this again was made the subject of a sudden, very volatile and totally meaningless attack.

I frankly admit that the kind of baying mood—almost a sort of race riot flare-up —which we had at the beginning of the debate, has not been the atmosphere throughout most of our Committee proceedings upstairs. It is a kind of reserve mood that is held back ready to be turned on and off conveniently like a tap. In fact, the Committee stage upstairs has been notable for a series of non-events.

The first non-event was the sustained, outraged attack upon the Bill which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, in his brilliant intervention, the public have been waiting for. Indeed, hon. Members opposite are so out of practice in this sense of outrage that, when they try to put it on, it has really a hollow ring. I agree with my hon. Friend that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) was not at his peak of pugnacity this afternoon. But all of it seemed, and must have seemed to anyone watching the debate, a little unreal.

The second non-event was the Opposition, panting for martydom in a great cause, demanding to sit all night. We have heard a lot about this. We have been given the impression that hon. Members, thirsting for a long night's work, have been deprived of their sacrifice by the Government. It is true that we had two all night sittings just to see whether this would enable us to make the progress hon. Members opposite said they wanted to make, and on other occasions we have sat until 11 or 11.30 p.m.—certainly not short afternoon sittings.

Only once in our seven Wednesday afternoon and evening sittings have the Opposition divided on our Motion to adjourn the Committee at a reasonable hour. That was at 11 p.m. one night when they thought that we should go on until 11.30 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker

The right hon. Lady is wrong. The Committee divided on two occasions. On one occasion, the Government divided the Committee and voted us down and would not go on; on the other occasion, the Government abstained.

Mrs. Castle

I do not want to breach private confidences but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he came up after the first occasion and told me that it had all been a mistake. He had agreed with me that we should sit until 10 p.m. that night.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Is the right hon. Lady going to continue to suggest that all this has been play-acting? Has she had no indication from the country of the feelings about the Bill? Has she had no representations from the road hauliers and other affected interests? Has she not heard from exporters, industrialists or farmers? She should not go on pretending that there is not strong feeling in the country about the Bill. Outside concern has never been greater or more genuine.

Mrs. Castle

I am being accused tonight of trying to prevent other people from getting a word in, but I would not mind if hon. Members opposite would allow me to continue my speech.

There was the "non-event" of the Opposition giving, as they admitted—in fact they made a point of it—full !attitude to go ahead, talking and talking without us ever moving a Closure. There has been the failure of the Opposition to consume the hours that they demanded. I suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is rather significant when we are trying to examine whether the attacks or criticisms that have been so vigorously levelled against us tonight are sincere.

Our debates on Parts I, II and III of the Bill took up less time than the hon. Member for Worcester had demanded of me when he—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Hon. Members are mistaking what guillotine we are discussing. We are not discussing the real one.

Mrs. Castle

Hon. Gentlemen cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that 450 hours is the very minimum needed to give them full democratic debate, and then make the point about saving their proposed allocation Part by Part, and refusing to enter into a negotiated voluntary agreement, because they were ready to go to the scaffold for their 450 hours and now, given total latitude and freedom without a Closure Motion, they have shown that the hours for which they asked were unnecessary.

The hon. Member for Worcester, when I was trying to negotiate a voluntary agreement, wrote and said that 27 hours' debate was the absolute minimum for Conservative Opposition Amendments alone. Yet, including Government and Liberal Amendments, as well as Conservative Amendments, we took not 27 hours but 19½ hours. Not all the elaborate repetition of their arguments, to the brink of tediousness, have succeeded in consuming the time that they tried to tell the House was necessary for the Bill.

The truth is that there are only three things—we have heard about the monster Bill, 10 Bills in one every part of which should be fought line by line—in the Bill about which the Opposition feel passionately. They are the "wear and tear" provision, quantity licensing, the extension of the manufacturing powers of nationalised industries, and, perhaps, drivers' hours.

Mr. Michael Heseltine

rose—

Mrs. Castle

I am sorry. I will not give way. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the right hon. Lady does not give way the hon. Gentleman must sit down.

Mrs. Castle

These are all matters of very great importance to the vested interests which are financing the campaign currently being launched in the country against the Bill. One of my prime purposes in trying to seek a voluntary agreement with the hon. Member was to safeguard time for these controversial Clauses lying ahead. I wanted to safeguard an allocation of time appropriate to their controversial nature.

I admit that when I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 29th February, I made this point clear. I said to him that I was anxious to provide enough time for discussion of all the substantial points arising in the Bill, and believed that we had achieved this on Part I, within the time which I had provisionally allocated. [Interruption.] The position is that I have had in my mind, and tentatively on paper, my own provisional timetable of how the time available could fairly be allocated, just as the hon. Member has had. I anxiously watched our progress, part by part and section by section, because I was very desirous of avoiding a guillotine; and all along I have been most concerned to get a voluntary agreement instead, if that were at all possible.

I would tell my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), for whose views I always have the very greatest respect, that what we have been careful to do here is to watch to see whether we were falling dangerously behind in our progress, because we did not want to delay coming to the House with a timetable Motion to a point which would leave too little time for proper discussion of later stages of the Bill. This, therefore, is what has decided the necessity for and the timing of the timetable.

Mr. Peter Walker

In her previous argument the right hon. Lady was saying that we have been very much quicker over Part II of the Bill than I had estimated. Seeing that I had estimated this previously, why did not the right hon. Lady do something about it instead of having the long gap during which time she agrees I have gone rather faster than I thought I would?

Mrs. Castle

The hon. Gentleman's own failure to live up to his own demands shows that he has never put before the House a realistic timetable. If he had done so I would have been willing and ready to discuss it with him. But since he did not put forward a realistic timetable that would enable us to complete these discussions by mid-May, the very latest date by which the Bill can go through the Committee process in this Session, we have had to watch that we did not delay the guillotine too long.

We ourselves have offered every co-operation in giving the Opposition a full chance to air its views. We have offered to allocate most time to those areas of the Bill which we know they are most keen to attack; and I would tell the House that if this Motion is carried I shall certainly be anxious to do that in exactly the same way.

Mr. G. Campbell

Can the right hon. Lady say definitely, on a point put to her by my hon. Friend, whether she is correctly reported as stating that she did not need the quantity licensing proposals for two years, following page 17 of the White Paper on Freight, which said that they need not be brought in until the freight liner service is fully developed?

Mrs. Castle

I have been incorrectly reported, as I have told the Committee and written to the hon. Gentleman. I have never said this would require a period of two years. We were ready to pass over more quickly those parts of the Bill which we know are so popular in the country at large that the Opposition dare not oppose them openly.

Mr. Peyton

Which parts are they?

Mrs. Castle

I am very happy to elucidate: the new bus grants, the rebate on fuel tax, rural bus grants, grants for the maintenance of socially necessary rail services, the creation of a system of recreational waterways, the introduction of quality licensing and the long-overdue reduction in driving hours—because, if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not care about road safety, the vast majority of people do.

Mr. Peyton

rose—

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Peyton

Give way.

Mrs. Castle

I have given way very generously, and I do not propose to give way to every hon. Member who finds my barbs too hard to take.

There is no hon. Member on either side of the House who will not admit that the Government have exercised a self-denying ordinance in the proceedings of the Committee, speaking, despite provocation, only when there was an important point to raise or answer. As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Worcester, in our discussions on Parts I to III of the Bill, only 36 per cent. of the time has been taken by the Government. My Ministerial colleagues and I have always been ready to listen to reasoned arguments and give reasoned replies. Time and time again, despite the image which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite attempt to create in other places, they have thanked me and my colleagues for our helpfulness and courtesy. If they want to hear the testimonials, I have a list of them which I can read.

Sir J. Eden

rose—

Mr. Peyton

Give way.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) must control himself.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

rose—

Hon. Members

No.

Mrs. Castle

Amid this picture of an unreasonable Government, we have the fact that already Ministers have accepted five Conservative Amendments and two by hon. Members on the Labour back benches, whereas the Tories accepted only three Opposition Amendments—

Mr. John Wells

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be well known to the House that no member of the Standing Committee is a member of the all-party Inland Waterways Group, with the exception of the Chairman of the Committee, who is in no position to say anything. I wanted to ask the right hon. Lady—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The fact that an hon. Member is not allowed to intervene is not a point of order.

Mrs. Castle

As I was saying, we have accepted five Conservative Amendments and two moved by hon. Members on the Government side, whereas our Conservative predecessors accepted only three Labour Amendments during the whole Committee stage of the 1962 Transport Bill. It is not we who are guillotine-happy. It is right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. In eight years of Labour Government, this is only the fifth guillotine. The Conservatives had 15 guillotines in 13 years.

If we are talking about the right for unfettered and democratic discussion, let us look at what they did in the 1962 London Government Bill, whose Clauses and Schedules were so long that the Act was only three pages shorter than my own Transport Bill. Nevertheless, the Conservative Government guillotined it before it ever went to the Standing Committee.

Mr. Huckfield

Shame.

Mrs. Castle

If we could have maintained the same sort of progress in relation to the overall time-table as we have done on Part I of the Bill, there would have been no need for a guillotine. We soon discovered that the hon. Member for Worcester has a built-in regulator. I have been watching my provisional time-table to ensure that we were making adequate progress. He was watching his to make sure we were not. Therefore, we had the experience that, whenever it looked as though our progress was forg- ing ahead, the speeches lengthened, the arguments became more repetitive, and, as my hon. Friends know, we could see the progress deliberately being eroded away. I say to the hon. Gentleman—

Sir J. Eden

rose—

Mrs. Castle

—that on Part I of the Bill the time we took per Clause was 1.9 hours. On Part II this jumped to 2.8 hours.

Sir J. Eden

On a point of order. The right hon. Lady is trying to steam roller through this House a very serious and limiting Motion. Should she not at least—

Mr. Manuel

No.

Sir J. Eden

—give way to hon. Members who are not on the Standing Committee—[Interruption.]—and have very little opportunity to question her upon the justification of this Motion? As you, Mr. Speaker, will know, I did my best to be called during the earlier part of the debate.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member has made persistent attempts to intervene.

Sir J. Eden

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member cannot succeed by making his attempt at an intervention on a point of order.

Mrs. Castle

From my observation, the hon. Gentleman's interest in the debate has come a little late in the day.

Sir J. Eden

On a point of order. The right hon. Lady is quite incorrect in saying that my interest has come a little late in the day. It will be for you, Mr. Speaker, to confirm that I was attempting to catch your eye during the debate.

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is still not a point of order.

Mrs. Castle

If I have done the hon. Gentleman an injustice, I withdraw without his having apoplexy. We made an attempt, as I have told the House, to see if we could maintain the rate of progress necessary without a guillotine by trying the experiment of an all-night sitting. We had made the sort of progress on the morning of Tuesday, 20th February, that was a kind of model for the progress of a Committee stage. If we had continued to approach our work in this way the hours that we could have agreed between us would have been perfectly adequate. So we said that the following night we would sit the whole night through and give hon. Gentlemen opposite the chance to make the progress which they said they wanted.

Mr. Peter Walker

In view of the fact that the right hon. Lady earlier quoted a conversation that I had with her, perhaps I can quote that in the middle of the sitting on the Tuesday morning she informed me that it was her intention to go all night on the Wednesday.

Mrs. Castle

The hon. Gentleman need not get so excited. The fact was that was the morning when the Committee was in one of its co-operative moods. Hon. Gentlemen had been saying that all would be well if we would only allow them to sit a little later. Therefore, once again, I met their request and, once again, my co-operative attitude has been turned into a source of attack.

Mr. Peter Walker

The right hon. Lady knows that that is not so. The reason why I asked whether it was going on all night was that within 20 minutes of the sitting commencing three of her hon. Friends asked for pairs for what was going to be an all-night sitting.

Mrs. Castle

I repeat that the purpose of the all-night sitting was to see whether our progress could be maintained. It was not, because whereas on Tuesday morning we took three Clauses in two and a half hours, in the 12 hours net of the all-night sitting we took four and a quarter Clauses. The length of the speeches can be measured in HANSARD. Whereas on the Tuesday morning they occupied three columns per debate, this doubled during the all-night sitting to six columns of debate.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

Would not the right hon. Lady agree that one of the Clauses which we disposed of during the all-night sitting was three pages long, and of great importance?

Mrs. Castle

I do not think that that is relevant. We all know that the complexity or interest of a Clause does not necessarily depend on its length. The truth is that hon. Gentlemen opposite have been playing not a double but a treble game. On the one hand we had the horror campaign conducted in the country, and on the other we had the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) making a speech to the young Conservatives saying that if the contents of the Bill were known there would be riots in Downing Street, riots against the rural bus grants, and riots against the fuel tax rebate. In Committee, however, the hon. Gentleman recognised that public opinion in this country does not like the spectacle of time-wasting, and so a new sophisticated technique was evolved for holding up progress. We all know that one does not filibuster merely by a proliferation of speeches. It can be done by a proliferation of Amendments as well. This is what has been happening.

Sir J. Eden

rose—

Hon Members

Sit down.

Mrs. Castle

No, I shall not give way.

Sir J. Eden

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must ask the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) to contain himself.

Mrs. Castle

The hon. Gentleman says that this is unfair. Perhaps he would like to listen to the following figures. When we discussed the 1947 Transport Bill, there were four Opposition Amendments per Clause. On the 1962 Transport Bill, there were two and a half Labour Opposition Amendments per Clause. On this Bill there have been 161 Opposition Amendments per Clause. As a result of this proliferation of Amendments, we have already spent 104 hours in Committee dealing with 44 Clauses and six Schedules. Under a Conservative guillotine, only 941 hours had been spent discussing 91 Clauses and 11 Schedules.

None of the offers which the hon. Gentleman has made about a voluntary time-table has been serious. To suggest that we could complete the Bill by the end of June by working 50 Committee hours a week is absolutely absurd. Does any hon. Gentleman opposite seriously believe that we could have the Committee sitting five mornings a week from 10.30 a.m. to 1 p.m., and then four afternoons a week from 4 p.m. to 1 o'clock in the morning, month after month? Of course it could not. What is more, hon. Gentlemen opposite would not thank us if we did.

Therefore, just as in 1962 the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) justified the guillotining of the 1962 Act on the grounds that the Government needed to reorganise the transport system as quickly as possible, I claim the right to get my Bill through the House this Session. The right hon. Member's idea of reorganisation was to disintegrate, to break up the British Transport Commission and to create new and dissipated elements in railways, road haulage, road passenger transport, canals, docks, ports and waterways. If he had the right to demand the help of the House in getting through a Bill to break up the Transport Commission, I have the right to demand time to re-integrate these functions.

Hon. Members opposite say, "But she has added a lot of miscellaneous things." But I would point out to my hon. Friends that, among the miscellaneous sections at the very end, side by side with common form provisions for guarantees to employees who are transferred lie the powers for local authorities to extend the payment of travel concessions on non-municipal undertakings. No wonder hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want us to reach that part of the Bill, because the Bill is full of policies with which they do not agree.

The case is established factually and unanswerably by pro-rata comparison with the 1962 Act. As the Leader of the House rightly said, we should compare like with like, and it is these controversial Transport Bills, produced by first one side and then the other, which should be the basis for comparison. I intend to propose, in the Business Sub-Committee, if and when it is set up, that we should still sit to 11 p.m. each Wednesday, giving us 12 hours a week until mid-May. This will mean that we shall have 189½ hours in all for the Standing Committee stage of my Bill, with 169 Clauses, compared with 94 hours for the 91 Clauses of the 1962 Bill.

That is to say, the guillotine of the party opposite allowed less than one hour per Clause of their Transport Bill and we will allow more than that. On Report and Third Reading, we shall be far more generous than our Conservative predecessors with the 1962 Act by giving three days instead of two for those stages. We shall be more generous by extending the debate each night and carrying over the discussions into the morning sittings from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. As a result of these arrangements, we shall give 36 hours in all for these stages of the 1968 Bill, compared with 13¾ hours for the 1962 Act.

We are being generous, because we want this Bill fully debated. We want it debated because we are proud of it, because we are united behind it and because there are embodied in it measures which are universally popular in the country and which hon. Gentlemen opposite have tried to overlay. We will, therefore, allow the full time that is necessary both for a full discussion of the Measure and to enable all the stages of the Bill to be completed this Session, as we have every right to do.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Webster

I beg to move in line 5, to leave out '15th May' and insert '27th June' instead thereof.

In that bout of synthetic pyrotechnics from the Minister, we could not understand if she was complaining that my hon. Friends in the Committee had spoken at too great a length or had spoken too briefly because she continually tried to square the circle in what I can only describe as an extraordinary speech.

I will not go into the figures which the Government subjectively submit to us. I have my own figures, from an independent source, and the simple answer to her remarks is that we cannot even answer the simple question: is our economy being stretched to breaking point? The Minister will recognise those words because she used them when speaking at great length against a time-table Motion on the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. On that occasion she filibustered well and truly. A number of her speeches lasted for well over half an hour and one lasted for 40 minutes. My hon. Friends are merely asking—

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to address the House against a background of conversation.

Mr. Webster

It is indeed, Mr. Speaker, and I am obliged to you for making that clear.

In the 23 sittings we have had in Committee on the Transport Bill we have consumed 83½ hours, according to my timing, and we have covered 45 out of the 169 Clauses. That means that we are three-elevenths of the way through the Bill. Because we are going ahead faster than even the Minister thought would be possible—indeed, she complained about the speed; apparently there has been an exchange of letters between the Minister and one of my hon. Friends on this issue—we would be finished the Committee stage in 297 hours. So much for the 455 hours to which reference has been made.

My Amendment demands that we continue to sit until 25th June, which would give us 21 more sittings, 75 hours, and bring up the total to 166 hours; and, with 42 hours additional, this would make 208 hours spent on the Bill. This would he only 1¼ hours per Clause—and this in debating the longest and one of the most controversial Measures of this Parliament and of any Parliament since the war. This is a reasonable proposition, although we are accused by the Minister of getting on too fast for her liking with some parts of the Bill.

I was not in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) addressed the House, but I am told that he made an impressive speech. I know from his long service as Chairman of the Committee of Selection what tremendous care he takes in considering what should be laid before the Committee. My hon. Friends have told me how impressed they were with the serious consideration which he had given to the task that was put before the Committee. As a result, his comments were telling and valuable and he spoke as a responsible Member of the House of Commons. I wish that the Leader of the House had adopted the same sense of responsibility. Under the 1962 Bill, which was a shorter Bill, by the time we had completed 21 sittings we had covered 13 Clauses, compared with 38 after 21 sittings on this Bill. The Labour Party had spoken 4,890 column inches and the Conservatives 2,146 column inches and the Liberal Party had spoken 64 column inches. There had been 70 Amendments passed. This time there have been as many as 499 Amendments passed and we have covered 38 Clauses and six Schedules. There are things which have shown—

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

I am grateful to various hon. Members—

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Heath

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you kindly tell us how it is that we are continuing with these proceedings when it is now two minutes after 10 o'clock and no Motion has been moved for the suspension of the rule'? I therefore suggest to you that the proceedings should stop.

Mr. Speaker

The fault is entirely the Chair's. I was being addressed privately at the Chair on a point of order—

Mr. Heath

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have said quite frankly that the fault is the fault of the Chair, but, with great respect, that does not alter the fact that the House is sitting after 10 o'clock without a Motion having been moved to that effect. I therefore suggest, with the greatest respect, that the proceedings must come to an end. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must take on myself the responsibility for what I have done.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Heath

Further to that point of order. I am sure we all respect the fact that you are willing to take the blame on yourself, but this does not alter the fact that the House is now claiming to be sitting after 10 o'clock when no Motion has been moved to this effect. I must therefore again request that these proceedings be stopped.

Mr. Speaker

I understood the point the right hon. Gentleman made. I am putting to the House the Question—

Hon. Members

No.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Heath

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that this Question must be put at 10 o'clock? If the Question is not put at 10 o'clock the House cannot continue with the proceedings. It is now three minutes past 10 o'clock. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I request that the proceedings be brought to an end.

Mr. Speaker

I am entirely seized of the point which the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends are making. The error was the Chair's and the Chair must put it right. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Question is—

Mr. Heath

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Question is, That the proceedings—

Hon. Members

No.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Heath

Further to that point of order. I suggest to you, with the greatest respect, that there is no authority for the Chair to put this Motion after 10 o'clock. When I raised the matter it was already two minutes past 10 o'clock; it is now five minutes past 10 o'clock. I must therefore request you, not having had the Motion, to bring these proceedings to an end and to continue with the next Order.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am asking the House, and I did ask the House the moment I made the error—

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Heffer

Shut up, you public school nits.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Noise does not help us to solve a problem for which the Chair was entirely in the wrong.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Speaker

Order. [Interruption.] It is for the Chair to interrupt the business. The responsibility—[Interruption.] Order. The responsibility is entirely the Chair's. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. Mere shouting does not take away from what I have been saying. The responsibility for interrupting the business of the House is that of the Chair. The Chair made an error. I am asking the House to let me make good my error by putting the Motion—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—by allowing me to put the Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members might at least pay the respect to the Chair to listen to what I am saying—[Interruption.] Order—by allowing the Chair to put the Motion that he ought to have put at 10 o'clock. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. The Question is—

Hon. Members

No.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Emery

On a point of order.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have all got the Order Paper before us. It is written there quite clearly: Notice of Motion. The Prime Minister. Business of the House. The Motion should be moved by the Prime Minister or one of his representatives. In the absence of the Prime Minister, we have got the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary. The fault is not the Chair's. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The Treasury Bench did not move the Business Motion which is on the Order Paper. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is not for the Chair always to have to be on the alert to do the work of the Treasury Bench for it. Since it is clearly written in the Orders of the House and on the Order Paper, I submit that it would be twisting the Orders of the House and interfering with our business if we proceeded, in the light of the present predicament.

Mr. Crossman

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that in our procedures it is laid down that Mr. Speaker will call upon a Minister of the Crown to move the Motion at Ten o'clock? It is for us to move the Motion when called upon by Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Let us be quite clear. I appreciate the efforts of hon. Members to absolve the Chair from the responsibility. I have said several times that the responsibility is entirely the Chair's. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. The attempt to protect the Chair is moving, but the Chair was guilty; and the error was the Chair's. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. I am asking the House that, I hope with the House's permission, I might be able to put the Motion.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Graham Page

On a point of order. it think, Mr. Speaker, that according to Standing Orders it is for you to call upon a Minister to move the Motion, but you must call upon him immediately after the interruption of business, that is, immediately upon Ten o'clock. It is now ten minutes past 10 o'clock. The time is surely past and spent for you to call a Minister to move the Motion.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Sir Robert Cary (Manchester, Withington)

It may be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that in 1953 Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, as he then was, lost a most important Bill because he sat down after Ten o'clock.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am aware that when faults are committed by either side of the House the other side has the right to punish it. In this case the fault is entirely Mr. Speaker's—[HON. MEMBERS: No."]—for not interrupting the business at 10 o'clock. I hope that we can proceed. We have many Amendments before us.

Sir J. Eden

Further to that point of order. With the greatest respect to you, Mr. Speaker, I think that all hon. Members will be aware that you were then engaged in conversation with another hon. Member and clearly had not noticed the passage of time. It is within my recollection, at any rate, that some of my right hon. Friends did their best at that time to attract your attention, since they recognised the significance of what was taking place. [Interruption.] That is quite fair and quite true. But it was also equally clear to all hon. Members on this side of the House that not a single right hon. Gentleman on the benches opposite did anything at all. The Motion which you would have called at 10 o'clock, had you been aware of the passage of time, stands in the name of the Prime Minister and would have been moved by either the Minister or the Leader of the House at that time. He was not concerned with it He had not noticed the passage of time. With the greatest respect to you, Mr. Speaker, it is not for you to take full responsibility in this situation. This is a Government Motion which had not been put at the proper time appointed by Standing Order, and therefore it falls. Under these circumstances there is no Standing Order of which I am aware that enables the occupant of the Chair to put the Motion to the House at the late hour of 12 minutes past 10 o'clock.

Mr. Speaker

Order. What is making it the late hour of 12 minutes—or now 13 minutes—past 10 o'clock is the fact that I have been addressed on points of order ever since just after 10 o'clock. Therefore, I would still hope that as the responsibility is entirely mine the House would allow me to put the Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Emery

On a point of order. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, shut up."] In all humility, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to tell us of any instances where the specific Motion which should have been moved by the Prime Minister or the Patronage Secretary at 10 o'clock has ever been put by the Chair more than a minute—perhaps I should say 15 minutes, but let me go back to the original time—after it should have been moved? Is it not the duty of the Leader of the House—[HON. MEMBERS " Hear, hear.']—to ensure that the House stays within order? Would not it create an entirely new precedent if the Motion should be put at this hour?

Mr. Speaker

I think the answer is this: It is the duty of Mr. Speaker to keep the House in order. It is Mr. Speaker who has violated the Orders of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]Order—by his error in not calling for the interruption of business at 10 o'clock. The error is mine and Mr. Speaker must take responsibility for it.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Heath

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House finds itself in a very difficult position. You have taken it upon yourself to say that it is entirely your responsibility to interrupt business, which you failed to do until two minutes after 10 o'clock—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—two minutes after the appointed time under Standing Orders.

If I may express a personal opinion, it has always been the responsibility of the Government Front Bench to ensure that there is the interruption at this point of 10 o'clock, because it is a Motion which is vital to the Front Bench for the continuance of business. Therefore, I place this responsibility upon them for a Motion of the utmost importance on a very contentious day.

In the circumstances that you have taken responsibility upon yourself, if you would ask leave of the House in order to move this Motion now, then I would ask my right hon. and hon. Friends for our part to grant leave to do so.

Mr. Speaker

Order. May I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am indeed deeply grateful for the generous attitude that he has taken. Mr. Prime Minister. The Question is, That the proceedings on the Motion relating to the Transport Bill (Allocation of Time) may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Crossman.]

The House proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I understand that, when I was putting the Question, I did not make clear that I was asking the leave of the House to do so. I thought that I had made that clear in my response to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. It is with the leave of the House that I put it.

Hon. Members

No.

Hon. Members

Yes.

Mr. Emery

It is out of order.

Mr. Speaker

The Question is, That the proceedings on the Motion relating—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—to the Transport Bill (Allocation of Time), may be entered upon—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and proceeded with—[HON. MEMBERS:

"No."]—at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Speaker

As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".

Hon. Members

Aye.

Mr. Speaker

As many as are of the contrary opinion say "No".

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Emery

No.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst (Shipley)

No.

Sir Knox Cunningham (Antrim, South)

No, no, no.

Mr. Speaker

May I attempt to make the matter clear? The Leader of the Opposition was generous enough—

Mr. Hirst

Foolish enough.

Mr. Speaker

—to suggest that Mr. Speaker might ask the Leader of the House to move the suspension Motion. I understand from the Chief Opposition Whip that I did not ask the leave of the House. I thought that I had made quite clear that this is a courtesy which has been extended to Mr. Speaker by the Leader of the Opposition.

I ask leave of the House to put the suspension Motion. I therefore put the Motion, That the proceedings on the Motion relating to the Transport Bill (Allocation of Time) may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 227.

Division No. 91.]	AYES	[10.17 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Booth, Albert	Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Albu, Austen	Boston, Terence	Chapman, Donald
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Coe, Denis
Alldritt, Walter	Boyden, James	Coleman, Donald
Allen, Scholefield	Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Concannon, J. D.
Armstrong, Ernest	Bradley, Tom	Conlan, Bernard
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Brooks, Edwin	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Crawshaw, Richard
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)	Cronin, John
Barnes, Michael	Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Barnett, Joel	Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Beaney, Alan	Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Buchan, Norman	Dalyell, Tam
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Bidwell, Sydney	Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Binns, John	Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Bishop, E. S.	Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Davies, Harold (Leek)
Blackburn, F.	Cant, R. B.	Cavies, Ifor (Gower)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Carmichael, Neil	de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Carter-Jones, Lewis	Delargy, Hugh
Dell, Edmund	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Dempsey, James	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Pentland, Norman
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)
Dickens, James	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Dobson, Ray	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Doig, Peter	Judd, Frank	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Dunn, James A.	Kelley, Richard	Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Dunnett, Jack	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Price, William (Rugby)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Lawson, George	Randall, Harry
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Leadbitter, Ted	Rankin, John
Eadie, Alex	Ledger, Ron	Rees, Merlyn
Edelman, Maurice	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)	Reynolds, G. W.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Lee, John (Reading)	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Lestor, Miss Joan	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Ellis, John	Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
English, Michael	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P 'c' as)
Ennals, David	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Ensor, David	Lipton, Marcus	Roebuck, Roy
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Lomas, Kenneth	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Faulds, Andrew	Luard, Evan	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Fernyhough, E.	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Finch, Harold	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Ryan, John
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	McBride, Neil	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	McCann, John	Sheldon, Robert
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	MacColl, James	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	MacDermot, Niall	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Macdonald, A. H.	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Ford, Ben	McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Forrester, John	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Fowler, Gerry	Mackintosh, John P.	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Fraser, John (Norwood)	Maclennan, Robert	Skeffington, Arthur
Freeson, Reginald	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Slater, Joseph
Galpern, Sir Myer	McNamara, J. Kevin	Small, William
Gardner, Tony	MacPherson, Malcolm	Snow, Julian
Garrett, W. E.	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Spriggs, Leslie
Ginsburg, David	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Gourlay, Harry	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Manuel, Archie	Swingler, Stephen
Gregory, Arnold	Marks, Kenneth	Taverne, Dick
Grey, Charles (Durham)	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Griffiths, David(Rother Valley)	Maxwell, Robert	Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Mayhew, Christopher	Thornton, Ernest
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.	Mendelson, J. J.	Tinn, James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Millan, Bruce	Tomney, Frank
Hamling, William	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Urwin, T. W.
Hannan, William	Milne, Edward (Blyth)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne valley)
Harper, Joseph	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Molloy, William	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Moonman, Eric	Wallace, George
Haseldine, Norman	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Watkins, David (Consett)
Hattersley, Roy	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Hazell, Bert	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Weitzman, David
Heffer, Eric S.	Morris, John (Aberavon)	Wellbeloved, James
Henig, Stanley	Moyle, Roland	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)	Murray, Albert	Whitaker, Ben
Hooley, Frank	Newens, Stan	Whitlock, William
Horner, John	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)	Wilkins, W. A.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Norwood, Christopher	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Howarth Harry (Wellingborough)	Oakes, Gordon	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Ogden, Eric	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	O'Malley, Brian	Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Howie, W.	Oram, Albert E.	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Hoy, James	Orbach, Maurice	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Huckfield, Leslie	Orme, Stanley	Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Oswald, Thomas	Winnick, David
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Padley, Walter	Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)	Woof, Robert
Hunter, Adam	Palmer, Arthur	Wyatt, Woodrow
Hynd, John	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	Yates, Victor
Irvine, Sir Arthur	Park, Trevor
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)	Parker, John (Dagenham)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Janner, Sir Barnett	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)	Mr. Ioan L. Evans and
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Pavitt, Laurence	Mr. Eric G. Varley.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Batsford, Brian	Bessell, Peter
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Biffen, John
Astor, John	Bell, Ronald	Biggs-Davison, John
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Awdry, Daniel	Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)	Black, Sir Cyril
Balniel, Lord	Berry, Hn. Anthony	Blaker, Peter
Boardman, Tom	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Orr. Capt. L. P. S.
Body, Richard	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Bossom, Sir Olive	Hastings, Stephen	Osborn, John (Hallam)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Hawkins, Paul	Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Hay, John	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Braine, Bernard	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Brewis, John	Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward	Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Heseltine, Michael	Peel, John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. SirWalter	Higgins, Terence L.	Percival, Ian
Bryan, Paul	Hiley, Joseph	Peyton, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)	Hill, J. E. B.	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Pink, R. Bonner
Bullus, Sir Eric	Holland, Philip	Pounder, Rafton
Burden, F. A.	Hooson, Emlyn	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Campbell, Gordon	Hordern, Peter	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Carlisle, Mark	Hornby, Richard	Prior, J. M. L.
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Howell, David (Guildford)	Pym, Francis
Cary, Sir Robert	Hunt, John	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Chichester-Clark, R.	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Clark, Henry	Iremonger, T. L.	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Cooke, Robert	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Cordle, John	Jopling, Michael	Ridsdale, Julian
Corfield, F. V.	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Costain, A. P.	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Royle, Anthony
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver	Kershaw, Anthony	Russell, Sir Ronald
Crouch, David	Kimball, Marcus	St. John-stevas, Norman
Crowder, F. P.	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Currie, G. B. H.	Kirk, Peter	Scott, Nicholas
Dalkeith, Earl of	Kitson, Timothy	Scott-Hopkins, James
Dance, James	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Sharples, Richard
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Lambton, Viscount	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Sinclair, Sir George
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Lane, David	Smith, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Stainton, Keith
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Doughty, Charles	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Stodart, Anthony.
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Drayson, G. B.	Longden, Gilbert	Tapsell, Peter
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Loveys, W. H.	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Eden, Sir John	Lubbock, Eric	Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)	MacArthur, Ian	Teeling, Sir William
Emery, Peter	Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)	Temple, John M.
Errington, Sir Eric	McMaster, Stanley	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Eyre, Reginald	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Farr, John	Maddan, Martin	Tilney, John
Fisher, Nigel	Maginnis, John E.	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Foster, Sir John	Marten, Neil	Vickers, Dame Joan
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	Maude, Angus	Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.	Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Gibson-Watt, David	Mawby, Ray	Wall, Patrick
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Ward, Dame Irene
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Webster, David
Glyn, Sir Richard	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Goodhart, Philip	Miscampbell, Norman	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Gower, Raymond	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Grant, Anthony	Monro, Hector	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Grasham Cooke, R.	Montgomery, Fergus	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Grieve, Percy	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Woodnutt, Mark
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Worsley, Marcus
Gurden, Harold	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Wright, Esmond
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Wylie, N. R.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Neave, Airey	Younger, Hn. George
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)	Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Nott, John	Mr. Jasper More and
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Onslow, Cranley	Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Webster

As I was saying when I was not interrupted—and you, Mr. Speaker, had mentioned that I was making a speech under difficult circumstances—we accomplished the first 44 Clauses of the Bill in what has come very near to being record speed. The Government have already made a chaotic mess of our affairs this evening. I absolve you, Mr. Speaker. I see that the Foreign Secretary has only just rolled up from wherever he has been, so he had better keep quiet for a start. Having got in a chaotic mess about this procedure and a chaotic mess about the guillotine procedure, with seven Amendments of their own put in at the last moment, I suppose the next thing that the Government will do, with the Minister's usual double talk—I do not see her here—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is she?"] I suppose if she were here she would say that I started to speak—

Sir J. Eden

Would my hon. Friend agree that, after this chaotic situation, for which the Minister is primarily responsible, the least she can do is to attend the Howe and listen to the debate?

Mr. Peyton

I am sorry to introduce a note of controversy with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), but does he not agree that by far the best thing that the right hon. Lady can do is to go away and stay away?

Mr. Webster

I do not want to cause a congestion on the Somerset and Dorset line. I hope I shall be acquitted if I do not interfere in this matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West will be delighted that the Minister has arrived. I hope that the Minister, now that she has turned up, and the Leader of the House, will take note of the great courtesy of my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Roy Roebuck (Harrow, East)

Oh, get on with it!

Mr. Webster

The hon. Member from Harrow Harriers—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Let us get back to serious debate.

Mr. Webster

My right hon. Friend has been very courteous to the Leader of the House, and I hope that as a result the Government will be reasonable about an extremely reasonable Amendment. We are asking for 40 extra hours in which to discuss parts of the Bill which are of great significance. I see that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) has just come into the Chamber. When he was a new Member, he lectured the House on Parliamentary procedure. I know that the Parliamentary procedure which he would like is the rubber stamp. The Leader of the House, with his reforms, would also like the rubber stamp procedure.

In that part of the Bill which has not been dealt with—and hon. Gentlemen opposite will become aware of this in due course—there is Clause 45 which proposes to give the nationalised boards unlimited powers to manufacture anything to do with any of their industries, without let or hindrance, and without adequate financial control. This morning the Minister tabled an Amendment while we were in the process of debating the Clause. As a result, we have to reconsider our action. This is typical of the Government. They did that in the same way as they have brought in seven Amendments to their own Motion on the day that we are considering it. We have not had an opportunity to consider these and to table Amendments to the Motion as it will be when amended.

I know that the hon. Member for Lancaster considers that debate is a waste of time. I remind the House that large sections of the Bill which are to be guillotined are dedicated to quality control of commercial vehicles, to the responsibilities of traffic managers, to the working hours of drivers, and to road safety. These provisions are to be steamrollered through without adequate discussion. The right hon. Lady has pledged herself as dedicated to road safety. This Motion shows up the complete hypocrisy of the whole business.

We have still to discuss quantity control, or as it is now designated, special authorisation, for a road haulier to move a load of 16 tons laden weight 100 miles or more. It is proposed to take away from business men, who are urged by the Government to do more to put Great Britain on her feet, the freedom of choice about how they will send their consignments. These hauliers will have to apply for special authorisations, with the railways being given a fortnight in which to say whether they can do the job almost as well for speed, cost, and reliability. This great distortion of trade will be against the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, which the Foreign Secretary wants us to accept to enable us to get into the Common Market.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot argue the merits of that Bill on the Amendment.

Mr. Webster

The Bill is to be steamrollered through because of this Motion. We have still to discuss the revocation order procedure, which will take away from a commercial haulier the right to have his special authorisation. It will be revoked if the railways, or B.R.S., or the National Freight Corporation, thinks that it can do the job as efficiently.

I remind the House that in the week before the Budget we have still to discuss a financial Clause dealing with a wear and tear tax, and an abnormal load tax. The hon. Member for Lancaster considers this a laughing matter.

Mr. Stanley Henig (Lancaster)

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Treaty of Rome. Which Clause deals with this?

Mr. Webster

That was good. I could not hear a word of it. These large administrative and taxation burdens are to be placed on the country. These provisions are to be steamrollered through because of a Motion which is viewed with hilarity by the Government's supporters. Those watching the debate will note the hilarity and irresponsibility of Government supporters.

We do not know how many more Government Amendment there might be; yet we are asked to grant this concession. The Leader of the House said that the Bill was delayed and did not reach Parliament until December. If there is not additional time to discuss these and other important points, this will be a precedent for inefficient Government and bumbling, and the bringing in at the last minute of long and contentious Bills which will take away people's freedom in earning their livelihood and consigning their goods, and much of the underpinning of the development area policy, and will add a tremendous amount in abnormal loads tax on which the Minister has promised that she will make concessions. In Wales, Scotland, the North-East and the North-West, the development areas and heavy industries will be bitterly hit. The Government would be wise to allow adequate debate and not steamroller this through with contempt for Parliamentary democracy.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch (Flint, West)

Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been made to swallow so much dirt by the Government that they are beginning to lose their sense of taste. This Bill is a case of tacking 10 Bills into one. Why should they not go further and have all the Bills of each Session in one Measure as the only way to get them through? What would hon. Gentlemen say if we were doing this tacking and guillotining? We obviously did not allow anything like so little time—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. We have had a serious debate all day and running commentaries do not help.

Mr. Birch

No one would have screeched lounder than the right hon. Lady, who has objected to guillotines in the past. They would have been rightly indignant, because this is by far the worst guilloting since I have been in Parliament. They could not have got through a Bill of this size in a civilised way, and no one knew this better than hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are doing something which, if we had done it, they would rightly have called dishonuorable.

It is a mistake to blame either the Leader of the House or the Minister too much. After all, the Leader of the House has never pretended to be honest or to show anything but contempt for the House, so he has been consistent, and that is why he was made Leader of the House. As for the right hon. Lady. I think that she genuinely does not understand what harm the Bill will do, or its financial implications. But Members of the Cabinet do understand what swinish nonsense this Bill is and the damage it will do. I am sure that the right hon. Lady's screeching in the Cabinet must have been unbearable, but they should have shown some courage—

Mr. Tony Gardner (Rushcliffe)

On a point of order. With great respect—

Hon. Members

Take your hands out of your pockets.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. I would like to hear the point of order.

Mr. Gardner

I am trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I cannot understand what connection his speech has with the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I will call the right hon. Gentleman to order if he gets out of order.

Mr. Birch

I was drawing to my peroration, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The members of the Cabinet must have understood that the Bill could not go through properly this Session and that it was irrelevant to the country's needs, and would be damaging. The right hon. Lady's screeching might have been unbearable, but they should have put plugs in their ears.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro)

The Amendment would extend the time by which the Bill would be reported. The Minister seemed to think that there was objection to only a few Clauses, but that is not so because in the South-West, and particularly the far West in Cornwall, objections are very strong and not only on those points she mentioned. Being a peninsular sticking out into the Atlantic, with all goods having to travel a long way to or from one direction, Cornwall is particularly interested in transport. It is interested not only in quantity licensing but in drivers' hours because the inflexibility of these Clauses might cause them serious difficulty.

The trade in broccoli and early potatoes flourishes at present because the growers can deliver to Leicester, Birmingham, London and many other large centres, in all covering an area with a population of 20 million, within the working day of one driver. If the law is altered in the way suggested by the Bill, with one driver, they will be limited to delivering to an area with a population of only two million and they therefore fear that there will be a glut of Cornish broccoli and early potatoes in the smaller area if it becomes illegal for them to deliver to a larger area. This and other minority cases must be presented when a Measure like this is being discussed, and we fear that this Motion will prevent these views from being aired. Already about 40,000 people have signed a petition in Cornwall objecting to the Transport Bill.

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) chided us in his amusing speech for not being vigorous enough in our opposition to the Bill. He comes from a family whose members have and have had in the past distinguished political careers. Their total years of service to the House is something that no other family can claim. He will agree that all who object to the Bill have a right to have their cases presented. Guillotine Motions limit the opportunities available to minorities and they cause dissatisfaction. They are bad for Parliament and they detract from our value as legislators.

Although the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) talked about spending 50 hours a week in Committee, if the Amendment were accepted that would not be necessary. I have always thought that modern legislators are rather soft about the number of hours they are prepared to put in. We should not forget that the guillotine type of limitation arose because the Irish caused a lot of trouble in Parliament in the last century and something had to be done. In normal cases, the guillotine should not be necessary and we should be prepared to work longer hours.

Mr. Dance

Although it would not take us much further, I support the Amendment. It would give us at least a little more time in which to discuss this vicious Bill—[Interruption.] It is a vicious and vindictive Measure aimed to do as much damage as possible to the private sector. It has been presented by a Minister with an inborn hatred of private trading, and she is determined to rush the Bill through as fast as possible.

Neither the right hon. Lady nor the Leader of the House has a mandate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I have full notes, mainly because this is such a vicious Bill that I dare not let my tongue run away with me. I prefer to contain myself by keeping to my notes, as I might easily have been out of order. As I was saying neither the Leader of the House nor the Minister has a mandate from the country for a Bill of this magnitude. Certainly they do not have a mandate to push it through with such speed.

It is difficult to assess which Minister is the most arrogant. The arrogance of the Leader of the House has been demonstrated time and again. It occurs every Thursday when he makes his business statement. He must realise what is going on behind his back all the time. On many occasions the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) has flouted his own benches.

Had the right hon. Lady—who, I am sorry to see, is leaving her place—and the Leader of the House taken the trouble—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that we shall not have any further running intervention. Mr. Dance.

Mr. Dance

The reason the hon. Lady has left her place is that she does not know the answers and she has gone to try to find them. If she and the Leader of the House had been in touch with the electorate as I have been, they would realise the bitter hatred there is of this Bill, not only among employers but among employees. I wonder whether the Leader of the House realises what is being said about this Bill by car workers in Coventry, East. I can guess what they are saying. I wonder what transport drivers in Blackburn are saying about the right hon. Lady. I do not think she will be their favourite pin-up girl. [Interruption.]

Mr. Bessell

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the fact that the House is sitting only by the courtesy of hon. Members on this side, any one of whom could have shouted "No" and Mr. Speaker would have been unable to put the Question, does it not ill become any hon. Member on the Government benches to make any comment? They would have lost the Motion had it not been for the willingness and courtesy shown by this side of the House. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that hon. Members will listen to the debate. Mr. Dance.

Mr. Peyton

Further to that point of order. While the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) was addressing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with a reasonable and modest protest, there was an interjection—as usual from a sedentary position—by an hon. Member opposite telling someone not to be pompous. That must have been addressed to the Chair. I hope that you will ask the hon. Member responsible for the interruption to withdraw that observation and not to repeat it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I feel sure that the observation was not addressed to the Chair. Fortunately, I not hear it. Mr. Dance.

Mr. Dance

I know that hon. Members opposite do not like to hear the truth. The truth is that this Bill is unpopular in the country and it is more unpopular because the discussions on it are being curtailed.

A few days ago an hon. Member—not the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale—suggested that the opposition to this Bill was half-hearted. [An HON. MEMBER: "And half-baked."] Quotations from what has been said by some organisations affected will prove how false is that suggestion. I have had representations, such as I am sure have been received by many of my hon. Friends from such organisations. For example, the Sheet Steel and Tinplate Stockholders, Merchants and Exporters say in reference to the proposed extra levy on all lorries over three tons unladen weight: With regard to the proposed extra levy on all lorries over 3 tons unladen, whatever the theoretical justification for a wear and tear on roads' tax, there is little doubt that the proposal … [Interruption.] The point is that this will not have enough discussion. Hon. Members opposite do not want there to be discussion. The Amendment would at least give a few more hours for discussion. The letter says: In our humble opinion the Government White Paper on Freight Transport is a retrograde step and will create chaotic conditions. The Midland Shires Farmers Limited, very important people who should be heard, will not have their views heard because of the guillotine Motion.

It goes on to say: It is particularly disappointing that after many months of negotiations with transport and industrial organisations concerning the licensing proposals, the Minister has seen fit to ignore many of the practical suggestions and amendments put to her and it seems to us that a wonderful opportunity to improve still further the efficiency of the vital road transport industry has been sacrificed to prop up yet again an ailing rail system by introducing the Bill.

11.0 p.m.

It does not end there. There are other people. A transport company in my constituency was asked by one of its customers: Will I have to pay more for my goods transport? It answered: You will. In the first instance you will have a monopoly, then what is left over can be taken by hauliers. In both instances road vehicles will be subject to an iniquitous wear and tear' tax in addition to the Road Fund Tax. These people want their viewpoint put forward. Under the Leader of the House's iniquitous proposal their viewpoint will not be put forward.

A car dealer in my constituency brings out many points about the Bill. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh. I wonder what their car dealers will say to them. A commercial car dealer writes: In conclusion may I draw your attention to the fact that Britain is the biggest exporter of commercial vehicles in the world and, to maintain this,"— are not hon. Members opposite interested in exporting?— obviously we must have a healthy home market. Does anybody deny that? He continues: Many proposals in the Transport Bill threaten the stability of this basic platform for our vitally important export sales of commercial vehicles. Does any hon. Member deny that? Yet the Motion will preclude these people from having their views put forward.

It is iniquitous. If the Government use their large majority, as I fear they will, to push the Bill through—as has often been said, it is not one Bill but 10—and can virtually nationalise every industry and trade, they will be rightly condemned for the fact that they are imposing a Socialist dogma on the nation. They have never been given a mandate to do this. Not only the right hon. Lady and the Leader of the House, but the complete shoddy Government, should resign.

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

That estimable newspaper, the Scotsman, in one of its advertisements, refers to itself as being an island of sanity in a sea of hysteria. I would hesitate to suggest that there is an island of sanity anywhere in the House tonight, but we have had plenty of the sea of hysteria tonight. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) said in an intervention. We on this bench certainly do not regard ourselves as bound by any courtesies extended by the Leader of the Opposition. Had we wished to have done so, we could have ended these proceedings at about twenty minutes past 10 when the Question was put by Mr. Speaker. We chose not to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I therefore appeal to the Leader of the House on this Amendment.

I have taken a slightly different view of the Bill from that taken by my colleagues, as the Leader of the House may know. I abstained from voting on Second Reading and I disagreed with my colleagues about the merits of the Bill, for purely constituency reasons. I regard the section of the Bill relating to railway finance and the granting of moneys to enable British Railways to run socially necessary lines as very important.

As a constituency representative who is vitally affected by this Measure, I would have regarded it as hypocrisy to have voted against it and then to have gone to the Ministry of Transport and asked them to keep open a line. I am speaking as one who is not 100 per cent. anti-pathetic to the Bill. It is good in parts and bad in parts. While I like the part I mentioned, I am gravely concerned at the adverse effect some parts of the Bill will have on Scotland as a whole and in parts of my constituency in particular. I have received representations from bodies which can be regarded as in no way party political, like the Church and Nation Committee of the Church of Scotland who are concerned about the effect of the Bill on the more rural parts of Scotland.

I have had meetings with branches of the National Farmers' Union in my constituency and with some small road haulage concerns which provide a real service in the part of the country I represent. Their service is by no stretch of the imagination an alternative to rail, because branch lines have been closed and cannot provide a comparable alternative to the kind of service the small road haulier provides, particularly in the carriage of livestock and other agricultural produce.

I must pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin, the sole representative of my party on the Standing Committee. In addition to the general Amendments he has moved, he has had to undertake the moving of Amendments affecting Scotland, at my instigation. He has done this extremely well and I pay tribute to him for that.

I took my view of the Bill on Second Reading on the basis that it should be allowed a Second Reading and that the points to which I objected should be ironed out in Committee. I was encouraged in this belief by the Minister of Transport when she said on Second Reading that she would consider sympathetically an Amendment to alleviate part of the position in development areas. But if these Amendments are to be considered on their merits in Committee, they must have time. I hope that the Leader of the House will sympathetically consider the Amendment to extend the Committee stage from 15th to 27th June. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin, on the general debate on the guillotine Motion, referred to a 50-hour sitting per week. This is a feasible possibility within this Amendment.

The time-table I suggest is—if the Leader of the House will listen to me for a second—that if the Committee were to meet on Mondays from 10.30 a.m. to 10.30 p.m., that would be 12 hours; on Tuesday from 4 p.m. to 12 midnight, that would be eight hours; on Wednesdays from 10 a.m. to 12 midnight, that would be 14 hours; on Thursdays from 4 p.m. to 12 midnight, that would be eight hours; and on Fridays from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., that would be eight hours. That is a total of 50 hours.

Hon. Members

Not Saturdays?

Mr. Steel

No, not Saturdays. That is a total of 50 hours a week within the Parliamentary time-table, and if one excludes Easter and Whitsun, a timetable of this kind would bring us to the end of the Committee stage long before the date suggested in the Amendment, and by the end of May.

I appeal to the Leader of the House, if he is not willing to accept the whole of the Amendment, to make at least some concession on these lines in order that the intricacies of this Bill and the way it affects various parts of the country can be fully discussed, at least in Committee. As a constituency representative who has taken a different view from his party on this matter, if these matters had not received full discussion and an airing in the Committee, I would feel equally bound, as a constituency representative to vote against the Bill on Third Reading, which I am not anxious to do. I hope that with this reasonable approach, the Leader of the House will make some concession.

Mr. Daniel Awdry (Chippenham)

I was sickened by the Minister's speech. I do not think that I have ever heard one which has annoyed me more. It was not fair. It was unpleasant, and it will make the rest of the proceedings of the Committee, of which I am a member, very disagreeable.

This is a unique guillotine. The precedents do not apply. It has not been brought about by obstruction; those of us on the Committee know this very well. It has been introduced because of the massive length of the Measure.

There is no secret that on our side of the Committee we have organised ourselves into three teams, each of which has been specialising in one of the three main subjects of the Bill. That can be seen by the names on the Amendments. There is a team dealing with the railways, a team on the buses, and a team on road haulage. I am a member of the team on road haulage. We have been possessing ourselves in almost complete silence and patience throughout the debates on the early Clauses. It would have been very easy to join in a filibuster and obstruct, but because we knew that the Minister might threaten us with a guillotine at some stage we made a point of not obstructing. [An. HON. MEMBER: "A great mistake."] I do not know. The country will judge.

Those of us specialising in road haulage have been taking the trouble to go round the country meeting industrialists and delegations and reading memoranda from people who will be affected by the road haulage provisions. The Minister suggests that the outcry is synthetic. She is utterly wrong. If she had been up in Aberdeen the other night when I spoke at a meeting of road hauliers—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Heffer

I merely said that there is far too much money involved for the outcry to be synthetic.

Mr. Awdry

That sort of intervention is very unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. The people who came to that meeting at Aberdeen were very anxious about their livelihood. If the hon. Gentleman owned a business which was threatened by a Government he did not like, he would stand up and fight for himself.

The road hauliers have genuine points to put, and the only way we can meet their anxieties is by putting down Amendments. The Minister said that we have put down a great many. Of course we have, because the road haulage provisions are entirely new and will completely alter the structure of our transport system. One of the difficulties of hon. Members s that our procedures here are somewhat out of date. For example, if we had a Specialist Committee on transport, those of us who are interested in transport—and I am pleased to call myself one—might have an opportunity to meet the experts and civil servants who advise the Minister, and the economists who are called in by her.

An Hon. Member

She goes against their advice.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Awdry

Exactly. But we might get some knowledge of the sort of advice she is getting. We could try to help her come to more sensible conclusions. But there is no Specialist Committee on transport. What chances have hon. Members, therefore, of discerning the advice she is getting? The only way we can deal with this problem is by putting down many Amendments to meet the anxieties of these people. It is very wrong of her to criticise us for the number of Amendments we have tabled.

The Leader of the House admitted at the beginning of today's debate that a number of people would be hurt as a result of the Bill. He seemed to get a great deal of pleasure from saying it. It is our intention to see that as few people as possible get hurt. We should like to see the country's economy hurt as little as possible.

Let me give an example of how a person can get hurt. Hon. Members opposite who have not studied the Bill may not realise that a road haulage firm that has had an "A" licence for many years, and in which the whole family capital is involved, may lose its chance to keep the business going at all if it fails to obtain a special authorisation under Clause 67 of the Bill. Have the Government any ideas about compensation for these unfortunate people who will suffer as a result of the political decision of the Minister? There is not one word on compensation in the Bill. Therefore, we have had to work hard to make good this deficiency because it is not an easy job to write new Clauses and Schedules to meet these compensation points. In order to get it right we will need considerable debate. This we will not now get and thus we will be unable to get proper compensation for the hauliers who will suffer.

The new concept of transport managers' licences is a novel idea and it may be good in many ways. But there will be enormous difficulties and problems for people like a small farmer with 15 acres and only one vehicle. He will have to get a transport manager's licence. This sort of plan will need a great deal of discussion, and it is right to put down a great number of Amendments on it to make it workable. The effects of the wear and tear tax on industry and exports need to be examined in detail.

The tragedy of the Motion is that the Clauses on which we have made good progress are not the controversial ones. They are, of course, important. For example, hundreds of millions of pounds of the working capital of British Railways are written off and it is right to look at it extremely carefully. But the road hauliers part and the quantity licences part are highly controversial and need the maximum attention. As a result of the guillotine, they will get too little attention.

I hope that when the Bill goes to another place some of these detailed Amendments which we have worked hard to nut down and which will not now be debated here will be properly debated there and if proper time is not given I hope that the Bill will be thrown out by the other place.

I support this fair Amendment. It is asking for more time, and I am sure that if we have this extra time we will use it usefully.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East)

Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry), who has just made an admirable and persuasive contribution, I have neither the honour nor the pleasure to be serving on the Committee, or what has been the honour and the pleasure up to now. But if right hon. and hon. Members opposite get their way, they intend it to be neither in the future.

I believe that all hon. Members, whether they be on that Standing Committee or no, share a duty to see that legislation is not put on the Statute Book without proper Parliamentary discussion. This has been a fundamental duty and responsibility of Parliament through the ages. It is one in regard to which the Government are in shameful dereliction in the course that they are commending to the House and for which they will, no doubt, rely on the slavish obedience of hon. Members opposite.—[Interruption.]—They are willing to wound and afraid to strike. They will go in the Lobby and in doing so they will betray the duty for which they were sent here—to see that Parliament discharges its fundamental task.

Mr. Roebuck

Some of us were sent here to get some dynamic government and that is what we are doing.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

Now there is revealed to me a question which has been puzzling me for some time. What is the reason for the disappointed, depressed and slightly bemused expression which the hon. Member has been wearing for the last few months?

Sir Frederic Bennett (Torquay)

Perhaps I can bring my right hon. and learned Friend up to date. One of the main reasons that the hon. Member has a depressed and bemused expression is that the Labour Party has just lost its deposit in South Kensington.

Mr. Bessell

It is also interesting to note that the Labour candidate was bottom of the poll.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

It is only the first of many such occurrences. They will go on until the next General Election—and that will come much sooner than the Parliament Act makes the Government think.

Sir J. Eden

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of this piece of news, surely it is manifestly clear to everyone that the Government have completely lost the confidence of the country and that there is no point in continuing with this Motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I hope that hon. Members will not raise bogus points of order.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

My hon. Friend says the Government have lost the confidence of the country. Surely what he means is that they have lost even that minuscule part of the confidence of the country which they still retained against the logic of events. It may well be, of course, that we need not be debating this matter at all—that the Government will fall even before the guillotine has done its ugly work. But nevertheless, in case Providence continues to delay that very happy, salutary and helpful outcome, we have our duty to do today in the short, remaining period of this Parliament before the indignation of the public sweeps this Administration from office.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now address himself to the Amendment.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

Indeed, I am anxious so to do. I have already discarded the thought that came into my mind—that you Mr. Deputy Speaker, might wish to follow precedent and adjourn on the news of a great victory. I am perfectly prepared to accept any self-denying ordinance on what remains of my speech if you think that the result in South Kensington merits a repetition of that good tradition.

Sir J. Eden

Does not my right hon. and learned Friend realise that it is not only a great victory but a celebrated defeat? The Labour candidate got less than 2,000 votes.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has just come in. I do not intend to go on much longer because my right hon. Friend should not really be kept up late. He must husband his strength for taking over in the very near future the responsibility of putting right all that has gone wrong under the present Administration.

Since you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have seen fit[...]ot to adjourn the House in accordance with precedent in order to celebrate this great victory, I would just add a word or two within the stricter framework of the Amendment. If a Bill such as this is put forward, one of this great size and diversity, three things are requisite, so one would think. It should be punctually presented to the House in the first instance. Secondly, there is a reasonable limit to the amount of "tacking" of related subjects into one mammoth Bill; and thirdly, when the Bill is embarked upon, the Ministers responsible should show a receptive, conciliatory and constructive approach. None of these three requisites have been satisfied with this Bill. As we know from the calendar of events, the presentation of the Bill was deferred and dilatory. As to "tacking", it is quite apparent from the merest glance at the Bill that it gathers together a large number of related but wholly independent and distinct subjects, related only in the looser sense that they are all within the general ambit of transport.

On the third requisite, I cannot speak at first hand, because I am not a member of the Committee, but I am convincingly and universally informed that, far from the attitude of Ministers being conciliatory, receptive and constructive, they have been obstinate and doctrinaire. That being so, this bad Bill will be a worse Bill if Parliament is not now allowed to do its duty and examine it, in order that the faults can be eradicated, as far as possible, before it is on the Statute Book. All that is asked in this Amendment is a few weeks more to carry out these necessary and salutory processes.

My hon. and right hon. Friends do not ask it for their own pleasure. It is no pleasure to have to sit hour after hour facing hon. and right hon. Friends on the benches opposite. It is their high sense of duty which causes them to do this. They ask in this Amendment for only a few weeks more of extra Parliamentary time in Committee. It is the minimum that they could ask for in accordance with their feelings. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has every right to echo the words of old, and say that he is astounded at his own moderation. It is the least that he can ask for, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen ought to accede to it without more ado.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

We have reached the time when the Leader of the House ought to show some generosity. What has happened ought to have shown him that now is the time, if he has an ounce of generosity, for him to show it. We have had a good example of generosity from my right hon. Friend not long ago. He could have taken advantage of the situation and won a technical victory. He showed the sort of outlook that we ought to have from our leading statesmen.

If I may have the attention of the Leader of the House, I would say that not only is the efficiency of the country's economy involved, but the Parliamentary system is also involved. It has always been considered a little bit of an anachronism to have someone as the Leader of the House who is really a member of the Government party. It means that if he is to do his duty he has on occasions to be firm with his own colleagues in government. People who have studied the Parliamentary system have always thought that this has been a weakness, to have such a person to safeguard the rights of back benchers on both sides, and to be in charge of all parts of the House. They have thought that it was asking too much of the loyalty of a man whose first loyalty might be to his own party.

11.30 p.m.

Up till now, in previous Governments—the right hon. Gentleman is a student of the procedures of the House and will know this—the Leaders of the House have been able, at one and the same time, to be loyal to their party, and do their duty as Leader of the House. So far, I do not think that the Leader of the House is living up to that splendid past. Tonight is the opportunity when he could do it. Let him remember that all that is being asked is that some more time be given for debate—a few more weeks. That is all that is asked for.

We have had the testimony of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester that he has produced evidence and facts to show that he has taken a most reasonable line in leading his team in Committee on the Bill. Yet, all that we get from the other side of the House tonight is a flat contradiction of that; and this is where the Leader of the House could do his duty. He should be prepared, in a judicial way, to examine the facts. He should take an independent line. It is his duty to see that he is fair not only to his hon Friends but also to the whole of the House. If he does not face up to that responsibility, one can foresee that the time might well come when we shall reach the point where a clerk, or some independent person who is capable of looking in a judicial way, is appointed so that claims for extended time, such as we make now, can be justified.

I submit that the case has been duly made and we should have a time extension. The right hon. Lady, the Minister. has not budged—

An Hon. Member

She has. She is not here.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

She has not budged in a Parliamentary sense. She made it clear from the start that she intended to get this Bill through the House by 15th May, and one would have thought that the Leader of the House would then have made it crystal clear that that date was not a fair one. He knows, if he is honest, that the Bill cannot possibly be adequately discussed in the time left before then. He should stand up to his colleagues, and even at this late hour he should make a concession. It he would put in 27th June, then there would be adequate time; but if he could not do that, then it should be at least the end of May. A scale of times has been worked out and given to the House today and, that way, he could be generous. He could also do his duty.

Several of his hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), have made no other argument than that our endeavours are "phoney", that all we are doing is to indulge in pure propaganda, and that we have taken this stand only because certain industries are supposed to pay something into the coffers of my party in order to advocate a case. That, for what it is worth, is the only opposition to a reasoned case that they have been able to make. I put it to the Government Front Bench that hon. Members opposite must know from their contacts in the constituencies, that feeling against this Bill is deep and strong. It comes, not only from road hauliers whose very future is at stake, but from exporters.

In a period when we have just had devaluation, when we have to build up exports not only for their own sake but because the very future of the nation is involved, then the Government bring along this Bill. As it is now written, it will put our exporters, and so many other people, in a position where they certainly cannot compete and, perhaps, cannot survive. There are hon. Members opposite who represent agricultural constituencies. They must know that, at a time when farmers are being asked to increase production in the interest of the balance of payments position, those same farmers have examined this Bill in detail and have come to the conclusion that it does nothing but hamper them in their endeavours. If they are not prepared to recognise the truth of their own postbags or contacts with the constituents, they are not doing their duty as a Government. They are cheating if they suggest that some sort of phoney propaganda effort is being made on this side of the House.

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale did not do himself justice. He is one of those gadabout Members. He wandered in his speech. It may have been entertaining, and certainly it was of a high level in terms of a normal Union debate. But I suspect that he made it to put himself right with his right hon. Friends. He has stabbed them in the back so often in the past, and he saw this as a glorious opportunity to lambast the Opposition and make the Labour Party think that it ought to keep him in its ranks. However, he kidded no one, and he did not do himself justice.

For once, I hope that the Government are prepared to put their duty above their loyalty to narrow party doctrines.

Where is the Patronage Secretary, who almost lost the Business for the Government? Where is the Leader of the House? He was being addressed by the hon. Member for Peterborough, and he disappeared. Where is the Minister, who pretends that this Bill is vital to her very existence as Minister? Clearly she is not prepared to listen to our arguments. It may be that they are adding up the figures. Perhaps they are having a whip-round to pay the lost deposit at South Kensington. I can only hope, when they are collecting, that they will remember Meriden and, if I might be so bold, they had better keep a bit in hand for Dudley, too.

The request embodied in the Amendment is reasonable. It is based upon evidence which has been produced and supported by my hon. Friends. It is one which ought to bring from the Leader of the House a sense of independence, to show that he is doing his duty and not being a lapdog member of the party which happens to form the Government for the time being. Even in his absence, if the hon. Gentleman sitting in for him could persuade him to make a gesture by putting off the vital date to the end of May, if not 27th June, he will escape a little of the criticism which is rightly directed against him at present.

Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke)

I thought that the Leader of the House was unhappy and indeed ashamed to have to introduce this Motion. This is the first guillotine Motion in my own experience, and I am appalled by the ruthless curtailment of discussion which will deny hon. Members their right and duty to examine proposed legislation that has such a considerable effect on their constituents.

The Amendment asks for an extra five weeks of discussion in Committee so that we can go into the details fully and properly.

Consider the new taxes which will increase the cost of distribution by road, force up the cost of living, and affect particularly the elderly and those living on fixed incomes. I am especially concerned for my constituents in Basingstoke, many of whom live on overspill estates with very high rents and other expenses. On top of that, there is the effect which the Bill will have on exports. Its proposals will increase the cost of getting those exports to the docks.

I feel that we need to discuss matters much more fully, and I hope to see some amendments accepted by the Government during the Committee stage. The new restrictions on loads carried over 100 miles, even in one's own vehicles, will have a major effect on a town such as Basingstoke, which has been built up on a road transport system and not a rail delivery system. I am getting letters every day from people in my constituency and from businesses who will be affected by the proposals in the Bill.

There is the abnormal loads proposal which will affect farmers in Hampshire to no inconsiderable extent. It is a surprising fact that some combines which are in common use are over the size which is permitted without paying an extra tax. I estimate that it will cost over £100 in tax alone for one of these combines to be delivered from the factory to Hampshire farmers.

When one looks at what is proposed in this Bill, with the severest guillotine on record. I think this House has a right to demand that the Committee should have extra time in which to examine these important matters.

There is another matter of great importance, and that is the question of drivers' hours. It affects not only lorry drivers' hours but also bus drivers' hours. In my constituency a bus driver's wage is £12 14s. 7d. a week and where—

The Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is going into far too much detail. He must confine himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Mitchell

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have in fact stressed the very point which is causing me concern, that one does need so much extra time to discuss these very detailed points.

The point I seek to make, and which I hope the Leader of the House will bear in mind, is that I understand the Government are going to tighten up the prices and incomes legislation. Where one has as constituents drivers who are only able to pay their rents because of the overtime they are able to work, it is important that the Committee should consider this in relation to the driving hours' limitation of the Bill.

There are a whole lot of other things which affect my constituents and my constituency and which I think it would be right to have 21 extra days to consider. It is a perfectly simple and reasonable request that one should have this extra time to look at these important matters.

There is another point concerning farmers. At harvest time, the harvest cannot wait upon the new legislation on drivers' hours. At harvest time one has to have one's vehicles on the road all the time, getting the corn from the fields to the farm. It is important that we should consider this in Committee so that we can demonstrate the case for exemptions here, and why these exemptions should be written into the Bill. We should have full and proper discussion on these matters.

I am sure the Government and the Leader of the House should consider this aspect in deciding whether or not to accept this Amendment.

Then there is the point made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) about the cost of and the market for vegetable produce, cauliflowers and things of that sort. He is concerned about Cornwall because he will not be able to get the stuff to my constituency due to the transport distance, and I am concerned in my constituency because the prices will go up. We want to have exemptions for these.

The Committee ought to discuss this in detail, and I submit to the House that we ought to have the extra 21 days we are asking for in this Amendment in order to discuss it.

Then there are matters affecting small business. In regard to garages, we ought to be examining and considering in great detail such matters as the power to supply petrol, to carry out repairs, to sell new cars and the like. We need more time than is at present scheduled for this.

There is a fundamental political and philosophical difference of approach between the parties here. We believe in spreading power and wealth throughout the community. They want to concentrate it into the hands of the State and the Government and give the authorities greater power.

11.45 p.m.

When one looks at what has happened in Committee, one finds that there are over 100 Government Amendments still to be taken. It will impose the severest guillotine time-table of any Bill that I can find on record, and I have been looking back over a longish time. There are over 120 Clauses still to be taken. We need those extra days to discuss them properly.

The truth of the matter is that the situation today has arisen because of the incompetent mismanagement of both the Minister and the Leader of the House. They should have started the Bill earlier and given us more time for discussion. They should have split it into separate Bills, as they did with the Transport Holding Company Bill, which shows that they are able to do it.

The question in everybody's mind must be: Why the urgency? Is it that the Government do not think that they will survive until the autumn? Is it that they fear the by-election results will drive them from office before the Bill can get on the Statute Book? This is one of the few reasons that one can see for their time-scale and hurry. Or is it the arrogant assumption by the Government that they are right and the only repository of all knowledge?

We are inviting Parliament to rubber- stamp the proposals of the Government with inadequate inadequate discussion. They are so sure of themselves. If only their actions were as correct as they assume them to be all the time, what a difference for us all.

I said just now that I had been looking back over some of the past cases. One interesting point I came across was that Clement Attlee, on a famous occasion in Parliament, drawing from his wealth of experience and working of the Parliamentary machine, said: The importance of that procedure"—the Committee procedure—"is that the experience and ideas of Members of the House are brought into the common pool. That is the traditional British method and the democratic method"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1937; Vol. 321, c. 816.] I believe that this is right. Here we have an opportunity in Committee to examine and to improve. There is a great deal of examination and improvement to be made in the Bill. I hope that the House will be given the opportunity of giving it that thorough examination.

Mr. Graham Page

I want to follow my hon. Frend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) in addressing my remarks to the fact that we are dealing in this paragraph with the Committee stage, and we are concerned in the Amendment to giving a longer period of time for the Committee stage.

No one could argue that the Committee stage could be dealt with properly by 15th May if it were dealt with in the normal way. The intention of the Government by this paragraph in the Motion is to deal with the Bill in an extraordinary way, a completely inadequate way, from the point of view of Committee work.

There is a theory that is sometimes proclaimed: that Parliament should not legislate in detail; we should pass Bills on a sort of general principle and leave it to the courts to put in the details. We have not reached that sort of sophistication yet, thank heavens. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said, our duty is to see that the legislation is properly considered, debated in detail, and goes out from this House in a fit state. We owe a duty to our constituents to see that the legislation is not ambiguous, that it is not an invitation to litigation, by dealing with it properly and not leaving it to the courts to decide eventually. It is quite impossible within the short period of time that would be given by this Motion as it stands to deal with the Bill in a proper way on Committee stage.

I am certainly not in favour of the Bill, but let it be assumed, for the purpose of argument, that I were a member of the Committee in favour of it. I should be receiving representations from bodies outside. I should be endeavouring to see that the Bill was eventually on the Statute Book in the best possible form. It is impossible, even for the Minister, let alone the back benchers who support the Bill, to see, in this short time, that it is in a proper form.

If we accept the Motion for the Closure of the Committee stage by the middle of May, we will abdicate our legislative duty. We will hand it over to civil servants and to Parliamentary draftsmen. Good as they may be, they are not elected to this House to legislate. We will hand over our duties to the courts eventually, at the expense of litigants, to sort out ambiguities in the Bill. I am surprised that the Minister is so arrogant as to think that the Bill is so well drafted that it cannot be amended.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans)

On a point of order. Surely it is wrong that we should be discussing this Bill with not one Minister from the Ministry present? There are enough of them there, for heaven's sake.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member cannot speak further to a matter which has been ruled not to be a point of order.

Mr. Robert Cooke

On a different point of order. Would it be in order for the Chair to accept a Motion for the Closure by an hon. Member who had not been in the House throughout the debate, should that arise?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am not empowered to accept such a Motion.

Mr. Graham Page

Nevertheless, I wish that the Minister were here. My words of wisdom might prevail on her to tell the Leader of the House that he ought to allow a greater amount of time in Committee. This will not do any damage to the Bill.

Mr. Crossman

I shall communicate with the Minister. She has to be away for a few minutes. I am paying attention to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I shall communicate his thoughts to my right hon. Friend. I know that she will greatly appreciate them.

Mr. Page

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous remarks.

Mr. Peter Walker

Is my hon. Friend aware that if the right hon. Gentleman misquotes him as be misquoted me, my hon. Friend will be in some difficulty?

Mr. Page

I do not know whether my trust will be well placed in the Leader of the House. I hope that he will repeat my remarks to the right hon. Lady.

Earlier in the general debate, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) seemed to chide my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) for not using Parliamentary procedure to defeat the Bill. If I had the opportunity, I would use every form of Parliamentary procedure to do so, and by Parliamentary procedure I do not mean filibustering, because that is not Parliamentary procedure. I mean proper debate, and proper argument, and proper length of time to debate it. The length of a debate, and the length of a Committee stage, depend entirely on the Bill. If it is a bad Bill, a long Committee stage is needed to put it right. That is Parliamentary procedure. The worse the Bill, the longer the debate, and in this case, where we have a rotten Bill from start to finish, we need a long Committee stage to put it right.

Sir J. Eden

The most awful thought has suddenly occurred to me. It is that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not understand what it is they are being called on to support. I do not know how many have even looked at the words which they will soon have to support, or know that they will be voting in favour of the Committee proceedings ending on 15th May. I wonder how many have worked out that those few weeks will be further condensed because of the Easter Recess, and how many have even bothered to get a copy of the Bill. I do not know in what wonderful way hon. Members opposite can isolate themselves from public opinion, but it is clear from their lethargic and supine attitude that it is successful.

They cannot understand the Bill or what they are required to do. Like so many sheep, they will be dragged through the fold. They are fond of calling on democratic institutions, when it suits them, to support causes about which they feel strongly. How easy for the hon. Gentleman, with the Government on his side, to be selective in calling on these institutions.

I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) because I am grateful to any hon. Member who introduces a moment of levity into our proceedings, but I was also sorry for him, partly because he was completely miscast as a defender of the Government, a rôle which does not come naturally to him. He is much more natural in the rôle of opposition and it was clear that he was yearning to return to that rôle. He had to stand argument on its head to show that he was a loyal supporter.

12 m.

Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)

Does my hon. Friend recall that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) paid tribute to the Opposition Chief Whip but not to his own?

Sir J. Eden

Yes, and how right he was, since he well knows the Patronage Secretary because it was he who—[Interruption.] How glad the House is to see the Patronage Secretary—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now find it possible to come to the Amendment.

Sir J. Eden

I find it virtually impossible to leave the Patronage Secretary. I was only according him the courtesy which he habitually denies hon. Members. I felt sorry for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, not only because he was miscast as a Government supporter but also because—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think that the hon. Member is aware that he is out of order and I hope that he will now come to the Amendment.

Sir J. Eden

I wanted to finish that one sentence—[Interruption.]—I will happily slap down the right hon. Gentleman at any time. I just wanted to make one comment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not made it quickly enough. He must now come to the Amendment.

Sir J. Eden

I began with the Amendment, which calls for further time to consider the Bill. It was while referring to some speeches made earlier that, in passing, I mentioned how sorry I was for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and that, in addition, because his seat has become marginal, it will not be long before he is in Opposition and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I do not object to the hon. Gentleman making passing references to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, but it is out of order for him to dwell on the hon. Member.

Sir J. Eden

I will dwell on him no longer. Some of my hon. Friends have explained why we need more time to consider the Bill in Committee and have referred to the Clauses which have yet to be discussed. The next Clause to face the Committee, Clause 46, would give various boards and new authorities far-reaching powers covering the development and acquisition of land. Other Clauses have far-reaching consequences for our constituents. I have discovered, in an attempt to find out the extent of the opposition to the Bill, that many members of the T. and G.W.U. oppose it. They are anxious that we should carefully discuss the Measure.

Unfortunately the Minister has not yet returned to the Chamber. However, the right hon. Lady has many qualifications, although I am not certain what they are. Whatever they are, she does not have a licence to drive. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not again."] Had she been so qualified, she would have taken a different attitude to this matter. At least we can say that she is qualified to drive a steamroller, judging from the Motion. If she persists with the guillotine she will be striking a further blow against free speech and will prevent hon. Members from discharging their duty of curbing the growing power of the Executive.

It is on this topic that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) are listened to with respect. That particularly applies to the latter, who indicated that the Government, in persisting in pushing the Bill through, were denying hon. Members the right to perform their Parliamentary duty. Because I fear this trend, which we have seen in many other directions under this Socialist régime, I am sure that my hon. Friends will press the Amendment.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

I shall be brief. A common theme has run through the speeches of my hon. Friends—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that hon. Members will assist the hon. Member in the main objective of his speech, which is brevity.

Mr. Wells

This theme has been the problems facing the farmers arising from the swift passage of the Bill. However, the problems of horticulturists are even worse, since almost all own lorries which carry F licences. Those licences will be abolished and their opportunities for hauling fruit and vegetables at the cheapest possible price will be jeopardised. The price of fruit and vegetables will rise in the shops or, alternatively, the incomes of growers will be still further reduced.

Mr. Peyton

Would my hon. Friend be so good as to repeat his last few sentences because they were almost inaudible through the mutterings from the benches opposite?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that all hon. Members will assist the debate. Mr. John Wells.

Mr. Wells

I do deplore the muttering by hon. Members opposite from a sedentary position, hon. Members whom we shall not see after the next General Election. No doubt, they are trying to make the most of their time here. For the benefit of my hon. Friend, I was indicating the particular problems there will be for the horticultural industry if this Bill is steam-rollered through. I hope that when the right hon. Lady has finished her private discussion she will pay attention to the problems of this small industry.

My second point concerns the entirely separate nature of the waterways section of the Bill. The Minister refused to give way to me in a most ill-mannered fashion when I sought to make a brief point on this earlier. The waterways Clauses are about the only sugar the Bill has. It would be to the advantage of the House and the waterway-loving community if this section could be removed from this obnoxious Bill and presented to another Standing Committee which could go on considering that section after 15th May. That would enable this particularly attractive part of the Bill to be properly considered.

Mr. Berry

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are already 28 Amendments put down to that section? This shows the importance which the Committee attaches to this subject. I support my hon. Friend in the contention that this part of the Bill should be considered separately.

Mr. Wells

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) takes a great interest in waterways. Those Amendments, which come late in the Bill, should have adequate discussion.

My third point concerns the Minister's remarks in Committee on 14th February when my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) had been dealing with the guillotine provisions. The right hon. Lady had just returned to the Committee room and chided my hon. Friend with these words: The hon. Gentleman's reference to my absence on Ministerial duty come amiss from someone … Hon. Members can read it for themselves. I promised to be brief and it is irrelevant. [Interruption.] The hon. Member who will never be seen here again might remain silent. It is the rest of the quotation that is irrelevant. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that hon. Members will not make interventions in the middle of a speech.

Mr. Eric Moonman (Billericay)

On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to threaten any hon. Member by the implication that he may not be here again now or at any other time?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not a point of order. Mr. Wells.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Wells

The Minister said these untrue words to the Committee: my absence on ministerial duty".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 14th February, 1968, c. 714.] I quote from that well-known truthful journal, the Daily Express, for the next day, namely, 15th February: Barbara Castle talked to 1,000 women last night about men and what they called her. "Red cow" was one of the names. "Madame Guillotine" was another. The report continues: Mrs. Castle was appearing at a London rally of Labour women. Whoever heard of a London rally of 1,000 Labour women being—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is a long way from the Amendment. I must ask him to return to it.

Mr. Wells

Precisely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So was the right hon. Lady a long way from her duty, and from the truth.

Mr. Peyton

I am not at all sure who of my right hon. and hon. Friends deserves the prize tonight. I rather fancy it is my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who I think extracted from the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) the admission that he had been sent here to get some dynamic government. This was, after all, the bitter definition of disappointment and it came as a cri de coeur as the clock passed midnight. It was very sad for all those right hon. and hon. Members who were here to hear it.

Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) was very distinguished also in his achievement, because he succeeded in flushing the Treasury Bench clear of the Minister of Transport and the Leader of the House, which cleaned up the proceedings considerably. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) will not misunderstand me. Though he treated the House to a very distinguished speech, I am not at all sure that the House is entirely in his debt, because, had he not spoken, there was a lively possibility that the Foreign Secretary would have replied to the debate. Far be it from me to suggest that the Foreign Secretary does not know every bit as much about this debate—indeed, much more about the Bill—than the Leader of the House. He probably has more agonising apprehensions in his mind as to what will happen as a result of the debate than even the Minister of Transport has. Now even his friends have deserted him and he has had very sadly to leave the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Peyton

I considered, after what has been permitted, and particularly after some of the comments which have been made by some hon. Members sitting down opposite, that I might be permitted to make some rejoinders. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I immediately bow to your ruling. I come to the guts of my remarks, which are concerned with the Amendment and with my reasons, which ought to be well founded, but which I fear are not, for hoping that it will be conceded by the Government.

The right hon. Lady, to the surprise of those of us who are not accustomed to listening to her on Standing Committee, ended her speech with a notable peroration. She said: "We are being generous". Of course, anyone on the Standing Committee who has bitter experience of having had generosity squeezed out of her might take leave to doubt it. But, of course, we simple fellows—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is an exceptional and unusual privilege to be able to speak for those people over there, to have with one simple fellows like the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) baying with self-recognition. It is a moving experience for an amateur.

Then the right hon. Lady went on, having announced her generosity, "because we want full, free debate". If she did not say that and I am falling into the habit of the Leader of the House and misquoting her, I am open to correction. Failing that correction she said: "We want this Bill fully debated". Does not the Amendment offer just that opportunity, or at least offer a partial debate and fuller debate than is now available? Why should the Minister not be as good as her word? She ended with this remarkable sentence. It was a fine trilogy—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) should really accept these pearls, which fell from the right hon. Lady's lips, and not from mine. She ended this trilogy: "Because we are united behind it". What a great relief it is to all of us to know that they are united behind anything. [Interruption.] Has the hon. Gentleman anything to say?

Mr. Henig

I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman for some time and he and his colleagues have not said a word in support of the Amendment. Does this mean they are seeking to withdraw it?

Mr. Peyton

Apart from being the grossest reflection on the Chair, that remark reflects the unease which at the moment affects the student population. I had been about to draw my remarks to a conclusion, but I know my—

Mr. Ron Lewis (Carlisle)

Carry on.

Mr. Peyton

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman tells you to hurry up.

Mr. Lewis

I told you to carry on.

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Peyton

I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends are generous and patient people and will allow me these few more words especially to get the hon. Member for Lancaster up to date with the argument. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, I hope, that the purpose of the Amendment is to prolong the Committee stage from 15th May to 27th June. I am saying that if when she uttered that great trilogy the right hon. Lady meant any one or all those three things she should accede to the Amendment. I hope now that by his silence, hard won though it is, the hon. Gentleman is beginning to show that he is creeping slowly up behind the argument.

It had been my intention to draw to the attention of the House to one or two passages of this lamentable Bill [Interruption.] I take it that those noises opposite were expressions of regret that I was not now going to do so. It is a matter of great local interest and common knowledge that some not particularly acceptable personalities go and torture the Scilly Isles during the summer. They are pretty badly treated in Clause 147 which says: The Minister may, after consultation with the Council of the Isles of Scilly, by order provide that any provision of this Act specified in the order shall apply to the Isles,"—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot debate the Bill on the Amendment.

Mr. Peyton

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I was not trying to debate the substance—[Interruption].

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Peyton

I am so sorry that you have so many competitors opposite, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may be allowed to express with profound respect and even greater relief that your competitors are not successful.

I am not trying to debate the merits. I am only mentioning a point concerning the Isles of Scilly. There are masses of points in the Schedules which should be fully discussed. Some of the language is fairly abominable. For instance, Schedule 15, picked at random, seems to me a fairly unpleasant—[Interruption].

Mr. Speaker

Order. Sedentary comments do not help the debate at all.

Mr. Peyton

I am very much obliged, Mr. Speaker. I and the House understand why these points are made from a sedentary position. They are bad enough.

I was tempted by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I should very much like to yield to their invitation and go through the Schedule in some detail, not because I am arguing the merits but simply to point out that such verbiage as is contained here should be fully discussed in the Committee. The Amendment offers not a full opportunity but a modest chance to discuss in somewhat more detail some of the more offensive and unpleasant provisions of this most obnoxious Bill which the Leader of the House, having, I suspect, not read at all, so blandly defends.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Crossman

It might be for the convenience of the House if I intervene briefly. It is rather embarrassing to do so because this has been a rather private occasion for the other side. I felt like one sitting listening to a Tory speech day, or even a speech competition with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) giving the prizes. It was nice to see how much admiration there is on the other side for the competitive stream of wit, charm and humour which has flowed in the last couple of hours. It has been a pleasure to sit quiet and listen. I got some impression from it of what it must be like for the Minister on that Committee to listen to it morning after morning and sometimes night after night. Having heard this portion of the record I can only congratulate the Minister on her monumental patience with a team who—and I say this in all humility—obviously regard their oratory and wit as talented in the extreme.

All I am going to do is deal with the smaller portions of the arguments which relate to the Amendment. I would like to mention the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint. West (Mr. Birch) who speaks only rarely—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I would not expect him still to be here after that speech. Even in his absence I would remark that I had nostalgia for the time that he was the wittiest speaker in the House. Now he is the most vulgar. His speech was the exception in what has been an amiable debate.

I want to turn to the proposals of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). He said that he recognised that the demand in the Amendment that we should postpone the date for Report from 15th May to the end of June was too big. He was prepared to do a deal and was prepared to have a somewhat longer and more arduous time-table in Committee in exchange for a date nearer to ours. My right hon. Friend will take him at his word and try to work out an arduous period within our timetable.

I would like to take seriously the speech of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). He said that the date of 15th May had been fixed in the mind of the Minister. I will let him into a secret. Some time ago the Minister and I came to the conclusion that the Bill would have to be reported by that date. My right hon. Friend was concerned with getting the Bill through and I was concerned with the legislative programme and what would happen if the Bill was not reported by that time but left until June or July.

From the point of view of the business of the House and the legislative programme, this was the latest date on which we could report it back, have a full and adequate debate on Report, and get it to another place. I am sure that there will be as many honourable and distinguished people there who will want to discuss it and possibly try to amend it. There will be a reasonable time for them to discuss it there. From all that I came to the conclusion that 15th May was the right time.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

The right hon. Gentleman is not being fair. He has admitted my point. He has admitted that he came to the conclusion that this ought to be the date before he heard the arguments adduced by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Crossman

It was some time before we announced the decision on the timetable that we came to that conclusion, and the discussions which the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) took place after that, with both sides taking their own firm views on what should be the terminal date. Our view was that it should be 15th May; his was that it should be the end of June at the earliest. We could not reach agreement as between these two dates because each side stuck to its clear view on the point.

The hon. Gentlemans' view—clear and rational—was that either we had to have the Committee proceedings lasting until June or we had to dismember the Bill and drop parts of it. As I reminded him yesterday, the choice therefore presented to us was of either dropping the Bill or having a time table, and we decided on the time table.

Mr. Michael Shaw (Scarborough and Whitby)

If the right hon. Gentleman says that he fixed some time ago the last date on which the Bill should come back to the Floor of the House, surely he must also have realised long ago what should have been the appropriate date on which to bring the Bill before the House in the first place in order that it could be given proper consideration?

Mr. Crossman

The discussions were in the light of the date at which the Bill started in Committee.

I want now to take up the points raised by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) about the time spent on the Bill. I recalculated the times and made a comparison between this Bill and the 1962 Act. That Act, introduced by the Tory Government, had 95 hours in Committee. If we make a pro rata calculation for the length of our Bill, on the same proportions the time we should allow should be 160 hours in Committee. Instead, we are giving it 190 hours. Thus, we are giving this Bill considerably more time in proportion to its length than the Conservatives gave their 1962 Act. That is the shortest and most succinct answer to the pleas on that score.

I have always enjoyed the contributions of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) on other Bills. He surpassed himself tonight because he made a simple point. He said, in effect, "What I think to be a bad Bill should be submitted to an extra long Committee stage; when we have a good Bill it should not." The difference between this side and hon. Members opposite is that they think that this is a bad Bill and want to submit it to a long Committee stage, while we know that it is a good Bill and want to submit it to a reasonable Committee stage. That is why I reject the Amendment.

Mr. Peter Walker

The right hon. Gentleman started his observations by pointing out that this had been a Conservative Party speech day, presumably because all the speakers in the debate have been on this side of the House. A similar observation was made by the right hon. Lady in 1962 when speaking on the guillotine Motion in relation to the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. The last few weeks have shown that, whereas in 1962 she was in favour of Commonwealth immigration and against the guillotine, she is now against Commonwealth immigration and in favour of the guillotine.

Speaking in that guillotine debate, which took place after there had been four sittings, during which the Committee had not reached the end of Clause I and there had been five Closures, the right hon. Lady said: On two occasions, Mr. Speaker, you have had to call hon. Members from this side of the House in succession, because no hon. Member opposite rose. It is obvious that it is not only the Bills which have been guillotined by the Government but also this debate. This illustrates the contempt with which the Government are treating the whole practice of discussion and debate in this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1962; Vol. 652, c. 472.] We have had a classic example of that in this debate.

The right hon. Gentleman said that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) had claimed that, if a Bill was bad, it required a long Committee stage and that, if it was good, it required a short Committee stage. He claimed that it was a good Bill. I am quite sure that what my hon. Friend was getting at was the ability of the Government to know what they require in a Bill, and to draft it properly.

The right hon. Gentleman drew a comparison with the Transport Bill of 1962. I will draw another. So far there have been more Government Amendments moved than the total number of Amendments, from both sides of the House, on the 1962 Bill. The talk of comparisons between the two Bills, one has to examine the enormous need to amend this Bill, not only from our side, but from the Government side.

We have been advised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that the way to attack Bills is to filibuster, and that this is the only method that any Opposition worth their salt should use. This was his advocacy. I congratulate the hon. Member on his very intelligible and witty speech. It has only, in my reckoning, been bettered in wit, vigour and passion by the speech that he made against the guillotine, when he spoke against the Motion in 1962. Then he was equally witty, passionate and so on, arguing against it, saying what a disruptive effect it had on the whole of Parliament.

Today he advises the Opposition that if they want this proposed legislation changed the only way to do it is to filibuster. This was the theme of his speech. We have not done that. We have offered to agree to a proper timetable. Has the Leader of the House considered the position in which he is putting the House of Lords? He will know that the guillotine on the 1962 Bill resulted in another place having a Committee stage of five weeks, and moving many Amendments. This guillotine will be imposed upon 125 Clauses. In 1962 it was imposed on 66 Clauses. We are receiving a guillotine on 125 Clauses, 12 Schedules and 110 Government Amendments. Therefore, the Leader of the House knows full well that we are not being given proper time.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) in his interesting speech, said that he was present, but did not join his colleagues in the vote on the Second Reading. He abstained because there were parts of the Bill affecting his constituency. He said that, having taken this view, the Leader of the House should make a concession on the Amendment, and agree to the extension of the debate. He pointed out that we could sit longer hours and suggested a time-table I do not know whether he was here, but the Minister of Transport has also suggested a timetable.

She has suggested that in the seven weeks remaining, the Committee should only sit, not 50 hours which is evidently impossible in the Government's view, but 12 hours a week.

Mr. David Steel

Did the hon. Gentleman hear the reply of the Leader of the House, who said that he was willing to consider these longer hours?

Mr. Walker

When the Leader of the House says something, one must examine the small print very carefully. If one reads HANSARD carefully, it will be found that he did not say that we would be able to have more hours during the seven weeks. He suggested that we might consider one week in which we might have more hours. [Interruption.] Is he suggesting that we should do far more than 12 hours? I am willing to give way.

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Walker

The hon. Member will see what I mean about reading the small print. We see that the Government have no intention of giving the controversial parts of the Bill proper time for debate and discussion. I would certainly urge my hon. Friends to vote for this Amendment. It is reasonable and, if accepted, the Government could immediately have a voluntary time-table from the Opposition. We would be able to agree to a voluntary time-table on the remaining parts of the Bill, and the Government would get the whole Bill.

Those who have said that our original suggestion was impossible because it meant 50 hours a week have overlooked that if our original suggestion had been accepted it would have meant 30 hours a week. Members on the Committee are willing to sit for 30 hours a week; they would willingly have done so in order properly to discuss this Bill. We enjoy the debates, and it would have been, quite apart from anything else and more serious considerations, an enjoyable thing to have done. Yet, on threequarters of this wholly unpopular and very controversial Bill, they are not willing to meet us.

12.45 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin)

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put.

The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes. 214.

Division No. 92.]	AYES	[12.45 a.m.
Abse, Leo	Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Albu, Austen	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Ford, Ben	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Alldritt, Walter	Forrester, John	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Allen, Scholefield	Fowler, Gerry	Marks, Kenneth
Armstrong, Ernest	Fraser, John (Norwood)	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Freeson, Reginald	Maxwell, Robert
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Gardner, Tony	Mayhew, Christopher
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Garrett, W. E.	Mendelson, J. J.
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Ginsburg, David	Millan, Bruce
Barnes, Michael	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Millet, Dr. M. S.
Barnett, Joel	Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Beaney, Alan	Gregory, Arnold	Mitchell, R. C (S'th'pton, Test)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Grey, Charles (Durham)	Molloy, William
Bidwell, Sydney	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Moonman, Eric
Binns, John	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Bishop, E. S.	Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Blackburn, F.	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Hamling, William	Morris, John (Aberavon)
Booth, Albert	Hannan, William	Moyle, Roland
Boston, Terence	Harper, Joseph	Murray, Albert
Boyden, James	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Newens, Stan
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Norwood, Christopher
Bradley, Tom	Haseldine, Norman	Oakes, Gordon
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Hattersley, Roy	O'Malley, Brian
Brooks, Edwin	Hazell, Bert	Oram, Albert E.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Heffer, Eric S.	Orbach, Maurice
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)	Henig, Stanley	Orme, Stanley
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)	Oswald, Thomas
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Hooley, Frank	Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Buchan, Norman	Horner, John	Padley, Walter
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)	Palmer, Arthur
Cant, R. B.	Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Carmichael, Neil	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Park, Trevor
Carter-Jones Lewis	Howie, W.	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Hoy, James	Parkyn, Bran (Bedford)
Chapman, Donald	Huckfield, Leslie	Pavitt, Laurence
Coe, Denis	Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Coleman, Donald	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Pentland, Norman
Concannon, J. D.	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Conlan, Bernard	Hynd, John	Pery, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Crawshaw, Richard	Irvine, Sir Arthur	Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Cronin, John	Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Cropland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Janner, Sir Barnett	Price, William (Rugby)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)	Rees, Merlyn
Dalyell, Tam	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Reynolds, G. W.
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Roberts, Gwilyn (Bedfordshire, S.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P 'c' as)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Judd, Frank	Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Delargy, Hugh	Kelley, Richard	Roebuck, Roy
Dell, Edmund	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Dempsey, James	Ledger, Ron	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John	Lee, John (Reading)	Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Dickens, James	Lestor, Miss Joan	Ryan, John
Dobson, Ray	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Dunn, James A.	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Sheldon, Robert
Dunnett, Jack	Lipton, Marcus	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c' tle-u-Tyne)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Lomas, Kenneth	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Luard, Evan	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Edelman, Maurice	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	McBride, Neil	Slater, Joseph
Ellis, John	McCann, John	Snow, Julian
English, Michael	MacColl, James	Spriggs, Leslie
Ennals, David	MacDermot, Niall	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Ensor, David	Macdonald, A. H.	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Swingler, Stephen
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Taverne, Dick
Faulds, Andrew	Mackintosh, John P.	Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Fernyhough, E.	Maclennan, Robert	Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Finch, Harold	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Thornton, Ernest
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Tinn, James
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	MacPherson, Malcolm	Tomney, Frank
Urwin, T. W.	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Varley, Eric G.	Whitaker, Ben	Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)	Whitlock, William	Winnick, David
Walden, Brian (All Saints)	Wilkins, W. A.	Woof, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Wyatt, Woodrow
Wallace, George	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)	Yates, Victor
Watkins, David (Consett)	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Weitzman, David	Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)	Mr. Alan Fitch and
Wellbeloved, James	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)	Mr. Harry Gourlay.
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Glyn, Sir Richard	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
	Goodhart, Philip	Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Astor, John	Goodhew, Victor	Neave, Airey
Awdry, Daniel	Gower, Raymond	Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Balniel, Lord	Grant, Anthony	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Batsford, Brian	Gresham Cooke, R.	Nott, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Grieve, Percy	Onslow, Cranley
Bell, Ronald	Gurden, Harold	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)	Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Bessell, Peter	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Biffen, John	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Peel, John
Biggs-Davison, John	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Percival, Ian
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Peyton, John
Black, Sir Cyril	Hastings, Stephen	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Blaker, Peter	Hawkins, Paul	Pink, R. Bonner
Boardman, Tom	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Pounder, Rafton
Body, Richard	Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Bossom, Sir Clive	Heseltine, Michael	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Higgins, Terence L.	Prior, J. M. L.
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Hiley, Joseph	Pym, Francis
Braine, Bernard	Hill, J. E. B.	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Brewis, John	Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Holland, Philip	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.- Col. Sir Walter	Hooson, Emlyn	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Bryan, Paul	Hordern, Peter	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)	Hornby, Richard	Ridsdale, Julian
Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Howell, David (Guildford)	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Bullus, Sir Eric	Hunt, John	Russell, Sir Ronald
Burden, F. A.	Hutchison, Michael Clark	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Campbell, Gordon	Iremonger, T. L.	Scott, Nicholas
Carlisle, Mark	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Scott-Hopkins, James
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Sharples, Richard
Cary, Sir Robert	Jopling, Michael	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Chichester-Clark, R.	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Sinclair, Sir George
Clark, Henry	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Smith, John
Cooke, Robert	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Stainton, Keith
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill	Kershaw, Anthony	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Cordle, John	Kimball, Marcus	Stodart, Anthony
Corfield, F. V.	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Costain, A. P.	Kirk, Peter	Tapsell, Peter
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	Kitson, Timothy	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Crouch, David	Lambton, Viscount	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Crowder, F. P.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Temple, John M.
Currie, G. B. H.	Lane, David	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Dalkeith, Earl of	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Dance, James	Leggs-Bourke, Sir Harry	Tilney, John
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Longden, Gilbert	Vickers, Dame Joan
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Loveys, W. H.	Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Lubbock, Eric	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Doughty, Charles	MacArthur, Ian	Wall, Patrick
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec	Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)	Ward, Dame Irene
Drayson, G. B.	McMaster, Stanley	Weatherill, Bernard
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Macmilian, Maurice (Farnham)	Webster, David
Eden, Sir John	Maddan, Martin	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Marten, Neil	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Maude, Angus	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Emery, Peter	Mawby, Ray	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Errington, Sir Eric	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Eyre, Reginald	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Farr, John	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Woodnutt, Mark
Fisher, Nigel	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Worsley, Marcus
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Miscampbell, Norman	Wright, Esmond
Foster, Sir John	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Younger, Hn. George
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	Monro, Hector	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Galbraith, Hon. T. G.	Montgomery, Fergus	Mr. Anthony Royle and
Gibson-Watt, David	More, Jasper	Mr. Humphrey Atkins.
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 258.

Division No. 93.]	AYES	[12.57 a.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Glyn, Sir Richard	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Astor, John	Goodhart, Philip	Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Awdry, Daniel	Goodhew, Victor	Neave, Airey
Balniel, Lord	Gower, Raymond	Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Batsford, Brian	Grant, Anthony	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Gresham Cooke, R.	Nott, John
Bell, Ronald	Grieve, Percy	Onslow, Cranley
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Gurden, Harold	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)	Hall-Davis, A. C. F.	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Bessell, Peter	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Biffen, John	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Biggs-Davison, John	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Peel, John
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel	Harrison, col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Percival, Ian
Black, Sir Cyril	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Peyton, John
Blaker, Peter	Hastings, Stephen	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Boardman, Thomas (Leicester, S.W.)	Hawkins, Paul	Pink, R. Bonner
Body, Richard	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Pounder, Rafton
Bossom, Sir Clive	Heseltine, Michael	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Higgins, Terence L.	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Hiley, Joseph	Prior, J. M. L.
Braine, Bernard	Hill, J. E. B.	Pym, Francis
Brewis, John	Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Holland, Philip	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter	Hooson, Emlyn	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Bryan, Paul	Hordern, Peter	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)	Hornby, Richard	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Howell, David (Guildford)	Ridsdale, Julian
Bullus, Sir Eric	Hunt, John	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Burden, F. A.	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Russell, Sir Ronald
Campbell, Gordon	Iremonger, T. L.	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Carlisle, Mark	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Scott, Nicholas
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Scott-Hopkins, James
Cary, Sir Robert	Jopling, Michael	Sharples, Richard
Chichester-Clark, R.	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Clark, Henry	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Sinclair, Sir George
Cooke, Robert	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Smith, John
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill	Kershaw, Anthony	Stainton, Keith
Cordle, John	Kimball, Marcus	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Corfield, F. V.	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Stodart, Anthony
Costain, A. P.	Kirk, Peter	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	Kitson, Timothy	Tapsell, Peter
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Crouch, David	Lambton, Viscount	Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Crowder, F. P.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Currie, C. B. H.	Lane, David	Temple, John M.
Dalkeith, Earl of	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Dance, James	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Tilney, John
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Longden, Gilbert	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Loveys, W. H.	Vickers, Dame Joan
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Lubbock, Eric	Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Doughty, Charles	MacArthur, Ian	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec	Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)	Wall, Patrick
Drayson, G. B.	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Ward, Dame Irene
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	McMaster, Stanley	Weatherill, Bernard
Eden, Sir John	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Webster, David
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Maddan, Martin	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle.upon-Tyne, N.)	Marten, Neil	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Emery, Peter	Maude, Angus.	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Errington, Sir Eric	Mawby, Ray	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Eyre, Reginald	Maxwell-Hyslop, R, J.	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Farr, John	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fisher, Nigel	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Woodnutt, Mark
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Worsley, Marcus
Foster, Sir John	Miscampbell, Norman	Wright, Esmond
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'ftord & Stone)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Younger, Hn. George
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.	Monro, Hector
Gibson-Watt, David	Montgomery, Fergus	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Giles, Rear-Arm. Morgan	More, Jasper	Mr. Anthony Royle and
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Mr. Humphrey Atkins.
NOES
Abse, Leo	Fowler, Gerry	Mendelson, J. J.
Albu, Austen	Fraser, John (Norwood)	Millan, Bruce
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Freeson, Reginald	Miller, Dr. M. S.
Alldritt, Walter	Gardner, Tony	Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Allen, Scholefield	Garrett, W. E.	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Armstrong, Ernest	Ginsburg, David	Molloy, William
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Moonman, Eric
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Gregory, Arnold	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Grey, Charles (Durham)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Barnes, Michael	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Morris, John (Aberavon)
Barnett, Joel	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Moyle, Roland
Beaney, Alan	Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.	Murray, Albert
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Newens, Stan
Bidwell, Sydney	Hamling, William	Norwood, Christopher
Binns, John	Harman, William	Oakes, Gordon
Bishop, E. S.	Harper, Joseph	O'Malley, Brian
Blackburn, F.	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Oram, Albert E.
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Orbach, Maurice
Booth, Albert	Haseldine, Norman	Orme, Stanley
Boston, Terence	Hattersley, Roy	Oswald, Thomas
Boyden, James	Hazell, Bert	Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Heffer, Eric S.	Padley, Walter
Bradley, Tom	Henig, Stanley	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)	Palmer, Arthur
Brooks, Edwin	Hooley, Frank	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Horner, John	Park, Trevor
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Grown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Pavitt, Laurence
Buchan, Norman	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Howie, W.	Pentland, Norman
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Hoy, James	Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Cant, R. B.	Huckfield, Leslie	Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Carmichael, Neil	Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Chapman, Donald	Hynd, John	Price, William (Rugby)
Coe, Denis	Irvine, Sir Arthur	Rees, Merlyn
Coleman, Donald	Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)	Reynolds, G. W.
Concannon, J. D.	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Conlan, Bernard	Janner, Sir Barnett	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Crawshaw, Richard	Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Cronin, John	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c' as)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Roebuck, Roy
Dalyell, Tam	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Judd, Frank	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Kelley, Richard	Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Ryan, John
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Leadbitter, Ted	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Ledger, Ron	Sheldon, Robert
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Lee, John (Reading)	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'ctle-u-Tyne)
Delargy, Hugh	Lestor, Miss Joan	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Dell, Edmund	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Dempsey, James	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John	Lipton, Marcus	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Dickens, James	Lomas, Kenneth	Slater, Joseph
Dobson, Ray	Luard, Evan	Snow, Julian
Dunn, James A.	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Spriggs, Leslie
Dunnett, Jack	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	McBride, Neil	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	McCann, John
Edelman, Maurice	MacColl, James	Swingler, Stephen
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	MacDermot, Niall	Taverne, Dick
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Macdonald, A. H.	Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Ellis, John	McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
English, Michael	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Thornton, Ernest
Ennals, David	Mackintosh, John P.	Tinn, James
Ensor, David	Maclennan, Robert	Tomney, Frank
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Urwin, T. W.
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Faulds, Andrew	MacPherson, Malcolm	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Fernyhough, E.	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Finch, Harold	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Wallace, George
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)		Watkins, David (Consett)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Weitzman, David
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Wellbeloved, James
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Marks, Kenneth	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	Whitaker, Ben
Ford, Ben	Maxwell, Robert	Whitlock, William
Forrester, John	Mayhew, Christopher	Wilkins, W. A.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)	Yates, Victor
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)	Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)	Winnick, David	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)	Woof, Robert	Mr. Harry Gourlay and
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)	Wyatt, Woodrow	Mr. Eric G. Varley.

Mr. Peter Walker

I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.

I do so for a number of reasons. First, we are now coming to the group of Amendments which include the seven Government Amendments which appeared on the Order Paper only this morning, though I must in fairness add that this was only one day later than the Motion itself. We on this side of the House have not had time to study the difference which these Amendments will make to the Motion, and, if necessary, to table further Amendments which may be desirable.

Secondly, a number of events have occurred during these proceedings which will undoubtedly result in the Government wanting to give further consideration to the Motion. First, there was the important and significant speech of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) who, as the Minister said, occupies a senior and important position. He told the House—and he is a Government supporter—that the time-table Motion was unreasonable, and urged that the Government withdraw it. I should have thought that any Government would wish to give further consideration to the valid points of such a senior hon. Member. They should also consider the concessions requested by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). During our debates, the country, in a by-election, gave its verdict on the Government. After we had been told that this was a popular piece of legislation which the country wanted, the people pronounced yesterday and the Labour candidate lost his deposit. Even if only because of pending by-elections, I should have thought that the Government would reconsider their unreasonable approach to the Bill.

Doing our best to rescue them, we have seen their majority crumbling in recent Divisions, until, on the last, it had fallen by about half. It is declining Division by Division. I know the Chief Whip's difficulties, so it would be better to adjourn the debate from his point of view as well. Recognising all these factors and the fact that their inability to table the Motion and Amendments in time means that we cannot discuss them fully. I hope that my Motion will be carried.

Mrs. Castle

For someone who is always demanding the right to work around the clock, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) shows great anxiety to get to his bed. We experienced this in Committee. Many protestations of dedications to a good cause have been made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, this is too good to be true. We who are on the Committee know this. They go through the motions but the hon. Member for Worcester likes to knock off early. Also, whenever the Government make a proposition which completely counters the attacks of the Opposition, they are thrown into positive alarm. They say, "We have had a concession: we must have time to consider it and think up new snags." The Amendments to come are very straightforward and clearly show the Government's intention to be generous on Report and Third Reading. If hon. Gentlemen were honest, they would welcome this instead of running away. I suggest that we carry on.

1.15 a.m.

Sir J. Eden

The Leader of the House recently suggested some formulae to prevent us from having to sit into the early hours. He made a great fuss about what a reforming Government we had, who, by making it unnecessary to sit beyond 1 a.m., were doing something which the electorate would note. Now, at 1.15, we are about to consider the second selected Amendment. I do not want to fight old battles, but it is only through the consideration of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that we are in this position at all. In these circumstances, the Ministers should allow hon. Gentlemen to consider these important Amendments fully at an hour when they can exercise the degree of intelligence which they have—[Interruption.] I know that that does not apply to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and that for his sake the proceedings could continue, but other hon. Gentlemen who heard his hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) will want to ensure that he contributes further to the debates, although it is most unlikely that he will wish to speak again. The House will therefore be denied an important contribution from back benchers opposite. Indeed, the contribution of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was the only one opposite in support of the Government. The alternative to which we shall be subjected is to listen alternately to the Leader of the House and the Minister.

The Government are attempting to force through in all its stages a highly controversial Measure and at the same time are ensuring that it is not properly debated. The recent by-election has made it clear that the electorate do not support the Government in their determination to press ahead with this legislation; another reason why we should adjourn so that the Government may reconsider their attitude to the Motion.

I fear increasing intransigence on the part of the Government as the night progresses. It will become more difficult for us to adduce our arguments in a rational manner. The Leader of the House purports to have the interests of the House at heart. He should not be prepared to allow our important arguments to be made at such a late hour, perhaps resulting in the Patronage Secretary seeking leave to move the closure.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

Over nine hours ago I asked the Leader of the House if there was a precedent for the admittedly unusual course of tabling Amendments to the guillotine Motion at such a time as to make it impossible for any Amendments to be tabled to them. Now, nine hours later, have the collective resources and industry of the Government been able to discover such a precedent? If there is one, will he identify it? If there is not, will he take the course which Parliamentary duty, decency, equity and commonsense demand and agree to adjourn to give time to consider the matter?

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Lubbock.

Hon. Members

Oh. no.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Mr. Speaker selects the orator.

Mr. Lubbock

I apologise to the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) and I look forward to hearing his contribution shortly. I say that because I gather that the remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite when I was called meant that they would prefer to hear from the hon. and gallant Gentleman first. I want—

Mr. John Wells

On a point of order.

Mr. Henig

The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) is speaking from the Side Gallery.

Hon. Members

He is offside.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Mr. Wells.

Mr. Wells

My point of order, Mr. Speaker, concerns the paragraph on page 460 of Erskine May which states: Members are not to read books, newspapers or letters in their places … This rule, however, must now be understood with some limitation"—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Mr. Wells.

Mr. Wells

I continue the quotation. Mr. Speaker. … it is still irregular to read newspapers, any books and letters may be referred to by hon. Members preparing to speak, but ought not to be read for amusement or business unconnected with the debate. My eyesight is not so good as it was, but so far as my eyesight tells me, the matter now on the Minister's lap is totally unnected with this debate.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is quite right. It is out of order for hon. Members to read newspapers or books for amusement, but they can have documents or a book which they may be going to use for the purposes of the debate. I hope that now we can get on with the serious debate.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

On a point of order. Can you tell the House whether the last point of order came from the Government or the Opposition side?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order. Mr. Lubbock.

Mr. Lubbock

The Minister, in a brief intervention, accused the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) of not wishing to stay up late and of hoping to bring the debate to a conclusion. We on this bench do not mind how late we sit. I am sure that I speak for my hon. Friends—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?]—when I say that, other things being equal, we would be perfectly prepared to continue until whatever hour it takes to bring this matter to a conclusion.

There are special features in the Amendments which, if the Motion does not succeed, should be carefully weighed before the House decides to go on all night. One which was referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) is of substantial importance. It is how we can discuss the series of Amendments put down by the Opposition when the whole picture has been transformed by the Motion proposed by the Government and when it is too late for hon. Members of the Liberal Party or the Conservative Opposition to do anything about them. As the Leader of the House has no recent precedent for this, this creates a situation in which we may be well advised to defer further consideration to another day.

I do not see that this would make a substantial difference to the guillotine Motion. It could be put down for another day. The Leader of the House has invented a procedure whereby it could be discussed in the morning if necessary. We are not saying that the Motion can never be debated, but that an opportunity should be given to hon. Members to consider those Amendments which have been tabled and decide their attitude in the light of consultations they may care to have with their advisers outside the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I cannot see what is wrong with that. I cannot see why hon. Members opposite should object to our taking advice from people expert in procedure of the House or those concerned with matters to be considered later in the Bill.

Although in a very brief intervention, the Minister said that she was not prepared to agree to this Motion now and imputed that this was because of lack of staying power of the Opposition, she certainly cannot accuse me of that. I do not want to boast, but I have been present at every all night sitting of this House in the last few years. Therefore, if we are going on all night, I shall be perfectly prepared to stay here for that. However, I think that on sober reflection the House would be well advised to accept the Motion and to return to this matter when we are slightly more refreshed than we are at the moment, after we have been able to give adequate consideration to all the further Amendments which are on the Notice Paper and to take account of whatever advice we may receive from outside the House, which is of some importance. I therefore suggest that the Minister re-considers this matter and decides to defer further consideration until another day.

1.30 a.m.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport (Knutsford)

I had not intended to intervene—

Hon. Members

Speak up.

Mr. Speaker

I hope that we can stop some of the noise, which does not help the debate at all.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport

If I may start all over again, I had not intended to intervene in the debate at this late hour, but I want to congratulate my hon. Friends on the excellent speeches they have made, and I think I can also pay tribute to the speech made by the spokesman for the Liberal Party. The nail was hit smack on the head by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) when he gave as his chief reason why the debate should be adjourned the fact that we are now coming to that part of the debate in which we shall discuss the Government Amendments. If we could adjourn, it would give us more time to consider those Amendments. We could then amend the Government Amendments. It would also give the Government time to amend our Amendments to their Amendments. If we do it in that way, any fair-minded person could say that the Bill was being properly considered.

There is another point which happily marries up with those which I have just made. It would give the Government time to reconsider this frightful Bill and to cancel it. The recent by-elections have shown that the country does not want the Bill. We are just going through the biggest crisis we have ever known in peacetime, and the Government celebrate the occasion by trying to sabotage the economy.

One last non-controversial remark. The greatest reason of all from our point of view why the debate should be adjourned is that the Government in general, and the Minister in particular, look more revolting than ever at this early hour of the morning and it would be a kindness to all of us to get home.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

I find myself in some difficulty in following my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport), because I had intended to rise in support of the Motion to Adjourn. But having heard his speech, I think we might prolong the proceedings into the night so that we have the pleasure of hearing him again. I do not wish to deprive hon. Members of any of these sparkling occasions.

I came here tonight to speak on the previous Amendment. I was in the House at this hour last night. I was unable to discuss the previous Amendment because I was gagged by the Patronage Secretary.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member must come to the Motion which we are discussing.

Mr. Robert Cooke

Perhaps I should preface the final passage of my speech by saying that I do not propose to endeavour to continue much longer. I came here and found myself gagged by the Patronage Secretary and obviously I would be unwise to mention his name again for fear of upsetting the Chair.

Mr. John Wells

I should point out that the Patronage Secretary is my constituent.

Mr. Speaker

I hope the hon. Gentleman will limit the number of places from which he raises points of order.

Mr. Wells

This is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a brief intervention upon my hon. Friend's speech to point out that the Patronage Secretary is my constituent, that he is a relatively reasonable man if allowed to sleep and is not disturbed—like sleeping dogs.

Mr. Robert Cooke

When I sought to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, the Patronage Secretary was out of the Chamber and I presume he had gone to collect some of his missing troops. Now he is back and perhaps we will have a closure. We are not only asked to consider a guillotine, but have been guillotined in considering the guillotine. We have had a guillotined guillotine.

Mr. Speaker

We are debating whether the debate should be now adjourned.

Mr. Cooke

I was afraid I might be guillotined before I could conclude.

I think we should have time to reflect and time to read the Official Report because my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has already discovered that perhaps some of the remarks of the Leader of the House did not mean what we thought they might mean. We should discuss those remarks in the cold light of day, having read them in the Official Report. It is not because we do not wish to continue, but because we wish to continue more effectively, that we wish to adjourn the debate.

Mr. John Smith (Cities of London and Westminster)

I understand, without confirmation, that tomorrow has been declared a Bank holiday. Whether this is true or not, it shows that we are on the brink of such a crisis in our affairs that I think we should defer this harlequinade to another occasion so that we can all get a night's sleep and face whatever tomorrow brings in a proper frame of mind.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

I should like to put forward one or two more reasons why we should not continue the debate. First, our having decided on the length of the Committee stage obviously makes it important that we adjust our views on how long the Report stage should be. As the Committee stage is being grossly curtailed, we should be able to look up the precedents and decide how long the Report stage should be. Second, I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) is absolutely right, and that there should be a chance—

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is difficult for the hon. Member to address the House against a background of conversation.

Mr. Ridley

There should be a chance to reconsider the whole position in view of the financial situation. Not only is there a financial crisis raging, but next week we shall have the Budget. We cannot ignore the effect of all these events on the fate of the Bill. As it involves the expenditure of considerable sums of public money, it is clearly desirable that the whole proceedings should be brought to an end so that we can reconsider the matter when the financial position is much clearer. This is no time for the Government to press on with a Motion to guillotine a Measure which is clearly not in the public interest nor in our financial interests, with a dwindling majority, a lost deposit in a recent by-election and a catastrophic financial situation. We should adjourn consideration of the time-table Motion to another day.

Mr. Graham Page

On a point of order. Standing Order No. 26 provides: In the case of grave disorder arising in the House Mr. Speaker may, if he thinks it necessary to do so, adjourn the House without putting any question, or suspend the sitting for a time to be named by him. Having regard to the information we have received about a grave financial crisis it may be that "grave disorder in the House" is a phrase which could be applied to the existing circumstances.

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is indeed ingenious, but the grave disorder to which the Standing Order refers means, as the hon. Gentleman knows, disorder in the House.

Mr. Emery

It is obvious that since the news which has only recently come to the House, the time-table Motion and the Bill have sunk into a state of little importance compared to the seriousness of our financial situation. It appears to me that the House will have to have an emergency sitting later in the day. It would have been for the convenience of the House, and in the tradition of the best Leaders of the House, if the Leader of the House himself had moved the Motion, so that we could be properly fresh and revived to return to have to cope with the serious situation which the country and the Government are in at present. There is a greater reason tonight for the House to seek to adjourn than at any time.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Bessell

Does the hon. Member know that there are many rumours flying around, including one that the President of the United States is to make an emergency statement later this morning our time and the banks are to be closed tomorrow? In this situation of grave financial crisis the point he is making is even more relevant.

Mr. Crossman

It may be convenient if I intervene. We have only one major and three relatively minor Amendments to discuss. We have proceeded amicably. I would not have thought, because of the disturbing things on the tape, that it was any reason to get into a panic and change our business here.

I would have thought that the sensible and responsible thing to do, if hon. Members here feel that they want to change their minds and move to other things, is to curtail, if they can, some of the discussion of this business which has lasted a long time. We should dispose of this business in an orderly and seemingly way.

Mr. Emery

I am disturbed by that intervention. I had hoped when I gave way that we would have the type of leadership that this House has had in times of crisis from its Leader. The right hon. Gentleman's statement falls a long way short of that tradition. It is easy for the Leader of the House to try to dismiss this crisis in order to try to suggest that we use it to get Government business through. That is what he is suggesting.

Mr. Molloy

You are glad of it.

Mr. Emery

I heard somebody say that I was glad, or that you, Mr. Speaker, were glad—although I am sure that it was meant for me—of the seriousness of the economic situation. That is a foul remark which ought to be withdrawn. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] If the situation is as serious as it is believed, there is every reason for the House to adjourn so that we can obtain as much information as possible so that we can make a proper judgment about the seriousness of the economic situation.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

Would my hon. Friend also agree that it is disturbing to see the Patronage Secretary sitting on the edge of his seat waiting to rise to ask for the Question to be put, whereas this matter requires not only information and thought but careful and quiet debate. Hon. Members may have noticed how suddenly this Chamber has got rather cold.

Mr. Emery

I do not wish to go through all the arguments that I wished to put initially on the Motion that we should adjourn in order to have more time to debate the time-table Motion. The guillotine Motion is being guillotined. Now the situation has entirely altered, and it will be held against the Government if they keep us sitting here tonight on a party point in order to ram home a guillotine Motion.

Mr. Heath

The right hon. Gentleman has just indicated that a serious situation has developed and has asked the House to remain cool and calm. He is entitled to make that appeal. But this would appear to be a situation in which the Government will make a statement. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could at this stage, at any rate, tell us when we may expect a statement on what he obviously regards as a very serious situation.

Mr. Crossman

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement at 11 o'clock this morning.

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

I do not think the House can really be expected to leave this matter as the Leader of the House seeks to leave it. Nor would it be in the interests of the country to do so. Things have been said in this House indicating a very serious matter. This news will have gone out. It will be in the morning newspapers. It will have its reactions throughout our economy.

This matter having been raised now, I suggest that we simply cannot leave it until 11 o'clock this morning. Not only does this news put our present discussions very much into proportion—very much into the position of their relative triviality against the background of the situation

which the country is now facing—but it cannot be in the public interest for the House to continue sitting for some hours without a statement from the Chancellor during this sitting.

I beg the Leader of the House to reflect for a moment on the repercussions outside. The news is already in Fleet Street. It will also be going abroad, at any rate on the overseas broadcasting systems. There will be speculation. There will be a measure of alarm.

It is the duty of the Government, once this matter has broken, to make a statement which may well be reassuring. Personally, I hope and believe that the Chancellor will be able to reassure us, that he will be able to indicate that what, on the face of it, look like crisis measures can be looked at in proportion and justified by the surrounding circumstances. But for us to go on debating this guillotine Motion when the country is plainly having a crisis is not only grossly discourteous to the House of Commons but shows a shameful disregard for the interests of the country.

Mr. Crossman

With leave of the House, I will reply to the right hon. Gentleman. I have said that my right hon. Friend will make a statement this morning at 11 o'clock. I also said that I thought it in order and perfectly proper for the House to complete its business this evening in a quiet and orderly way. To break off our business now, merely because we have a statement at 11 o'clock, is a step that is not necessary.

Mr. John Silkin

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Hon. Members

No.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 214.

Division No. 94.]	AYES	[1.55 a.m.
Abse, Leo	Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Blackburn, F.
Albu, Austen	Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Blenkinsop, Arthur
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Barnes, Michael	Booth, Albert
Alldritt, Walter	Barnett, Joel	Boston, Terence
Allen, Scholefield	Beaney, Alan	Boyden, James
Armstrong, Ernest	Bidwell, Sydney	Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Binns, John	Bradley, Tom
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Bishop, E. S.	Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Brooks, Edwin	Henig, Stanley	Orme, Stanley
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)	Oswald, Thomas
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Hooley, Frank	Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Horner, John	Padley, Walter
Buchan, Norman	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)	Palmer, Arthur
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Cant, R. B.	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Park, Trevor
Carmichael, Neil	Howie, W.	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Hoy, James	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Huckfield, Leslie	Pavitt, Laurence
Chapman, Donald	Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Pentland, Norman
Coe, Denis	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Coleman, Donald	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Concannon, J. D.	Hynd, John	Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Conlan, Bernard	Irvine, Sir Arthur	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Crawshaw, Richard	Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)	Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Jackson, peter M. (High Peak)	Price, William (Rugby)
Dalyell, Tam	Janner, Sir Barnett	Rees, Merlyn
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P 'c' as, S.)	Reynolds, G. W.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Jones, Rt. Hn.Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P 'c' as)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Delargy, Hugh	Judd, Frank	Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Dell, Edmund	Kelley, Richard	Roebuck, Roy
Dempsey, James	Kerr, Russell (Feltham.)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John	Leadbitter, Ted	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Dickens, James	Ledger, Ron	Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Dobson, Ray	Lee, John (Reading)	Ryan, John
Dunnett, Jack	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth, (Exeter)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Sheldon, Robert
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Lipton, Marcus	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Lomas, Kenneth	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Luard, Evan	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Ellis, John	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
English, Michael	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Ennals, David	McBride, Neil	Slater, Joseph
Ensor, David	McCann, John	Snow, Julian
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	MacColl, James	Spriggs, Leslie
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	MacDermot, Niall	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Faulds, Andrew	Macdonald, A. H.	Swingler, Stephen
Fernyhough, E.	McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Taverne, Dick
Finch, Harold	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Maclennnan, Robert	Thornton, Ernest
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Tinn, James
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	MacPherson, Malcolm	Tomney, Frank
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Ford, Ben	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Forrester, John	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Wallace, George
Fowler, Gerry	Marks, Kenneth	Watkins, David (Consett)
	Maxwell, Robert	Weitzman, David
Fraser, John (Norwood)	Mayhew, Christopher	Wellbeloved, James
Freeson, Reginald	Mendelson, J. J.	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Gardner, Tony	Millan, Bruce	Whitaker, Ben
Garrett, W. E.	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Whitlock, William
Ginsburg, David	Milne, Edward (Blyth)	Wilkins, W. A.
Gourlay, Harry	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Molloy, William	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Gregory, Arnold	Moonman, Eric	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Grey, Charles (Durham)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Williams, Clifford (Abertilery)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Morris, John (Aberavon)	Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Hamling, William	Moyle, Roland	Winnick, David
Hannan, William	Murray, Albert	Woof, Robert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Newens, Stan	Wyatt, Woodrow
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Norwood, Christopher	Yates, Victor
Haseldine, Norman	Oakes, Gordon
Hattersley, Roy	O'Malley, Brian	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hazell, Bert	Oram, Albert E.	Mr. Joseph Harper and
Heffer, Eric S,	Orbach, Maurice	Mr. Eric G. Varley.
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Beamish, Col. Sir Tutton	Biggs-Davison, John
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Bell, Ronald	Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Astor, John	Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Black, Sir Cyril
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)	Blaker, Peter
Awdry, Daniel	Berry, Hn. Anthony	Boardman, Tom
Balniel, Lord	Bessell, Peter	Body, Richard
Balsford, Brian	Biffen, John	Bossom, Sir Clive
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Nott, John
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Onslow, Cranley
Brains, Bernard	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Brewis, John	Hastings, Stephen	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Hawkins, Paul	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.- Col. Sir Walter	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Bryan, Paul	Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward	Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)	Heseltine, Michael	Peel, John
Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Higgins, Terence L.	Percival, Ian
Bullus, Sir Eric	Hiley, Joseph	Peyton, John
Burden, F. A.	Hill, J. E. B.	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Campbell, Gordon	Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Pink, R. Bonner
Carlisle, Mark	Holland, Philip	Pounder, Rafton
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Hooson, Emlyn	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Cary, Sir Robert	Hordern, Peter	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Chichester-Clark, R.	Hornby, Richard	Pym, Francis
Clark, Henry	Howell, David (Guildford)	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Cooke, Robert	Hunt, John	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Cordle, John	Iremonger, T. L.	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Corfield, F. V.	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Costain, A. P.	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Ridsdale, Julian
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	Jopling, Michael	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Royle, Anthony
Crouch, David	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Russell, Sir Ronald
Crowder, F. P.	Kerby, Capt. Henry	St. John-stevas, Norman
Currie, G. B. H.	Kershaw, Anthony	Scott, Nicholas
Dalkeith, Earl of	Kimball, Marcus	Scott-Hopkins, James
Dance, James	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Sharples, Richard
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Kirk, Peter	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)	Kitson, Timothy	Sinclair, Sir George
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Smith, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Lambton, Viscount	Stainton, Keith
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Doughty, Charles	Lane, David	Stodart, Anthony
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Drayson, G. B.	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Tapsell, Peter
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Eden, Sir John	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Longden, Gilbert	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Loveys, W. H.	Temple, John M.
Emery, Peter	Lubbock, Eric	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Errington, Sir Eric	MacArthur, Ian	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Eyre, Reginald	Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)	Tilney, John
Farr, John	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Fisher, Nigel	McMaster, Stanley	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Vickers, Dame Joan
Foster, Sir John	Maddan, Martin	Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	Marten, Neil	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Gibson-Watt, David	Maude, Angus	Wall, Patrick
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan	Mawby, Ray	Ward, Dame Irene
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Webster, David
Glyn, Sir Richard	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Goodhart, Philip	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Goodhew, Victor	Miscampbell, Norman	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Gower, Raymond	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Grant, Anthony	Montgomery, Fergus	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Gresham Cooke, R.	More, Jasper	Woodnutt, Mark
	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Worsley, Marcus
Grieve, Percy	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Wright, Esmond
Gurden, Harold	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Younger, Hn. George
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)	Neave, Airey	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Mr. Bernard Wetherill and
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Mr. Hector Monro.

Question put accordingly, That the debate be now adjourned.

The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 243.

Division No. 95.]	AYES	[2.06 a.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)	Bossom, Sir clive
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Berry, Hn. Anthony	Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Astor, John	Bessell, Peter	Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Biffen, John	Braine, Bernard
Awdry, Daniel	Biggs-Davison, John	Brewis, John
Balniel, Lord	Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel	Brinton, Sir Tatton
Batsford, Brian	Black, Sir Cyril	Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Blaker, Peter	Bryan, Paul
Bell, Ronald	Boardman, Tom	Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Body, Richard	Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Bullus, Sir Eric	Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Burden, F. A.	Heseltine, Michael	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Campbell, Gordon	Higgins, Terence L.	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Carlisle, Mark	Hiley, Joseph	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Hill, J. E. B.	Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Cary, Sir Robert	Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Peel, John
Chichester-Clark, R.	Holland, Philip	Percival, Ian
Clark, Henry	Hooson, Emlyn	Peyton, John
Cooke, Robert	Hordern, Peter	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill	Hornby, Richard	Pink, R. Bonner
Cordle, John	Howell, David (Guildford)	Pounder, Rafton
Corfield, F. V.	Hunt, John	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Costain, A. P.	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	Iremonger, T. L.	Pym, Francis
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Crouch, David	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Crowder, F. P.	Jopling, Michael	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Currie, G. B. H.	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Dalkeith, Earl of	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Dance, James	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Ridsdale, Julian
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Kershaw, Anthony	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)	Kimball, Marcus	Royle, Anthony
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Russell, Sir Ronald
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Kirk, Peter	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Kitson, Timothy	Scott, Nicholas
Doughty, Charles	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Scott-Hopkins, James
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec	Lambton, Viscount	Sharples, Richard
Drayson, C. B.	Lancaster, Col, C. G.	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Lane, David	Sinclair, Sir George
Eden, Sir John	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Smith, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Elliott, R. W. (N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Stodart, Anthony
Emery, Peter	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Errington, Sir Eric	Longden, Gilbert	Tapsell, Peter
Eyre, Reginald	Loveys, W. H.	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Farr, John	Lubbock, Eric	Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Fisher, Nigel	MacArthur, Ian	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)	Temple, John M.
Foster, Sir John	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	McMaster, Stanley	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Gibson-Watt, David	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Tilney, John
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan	Maddan, Martin	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Marten, Neil	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Glyn, Sir Richard	Maude, Angus	Vickers, Dame Joan
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Mawby, Ray	Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Goodhart, Philip	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Goodhew, Victor	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.	Wall, Patrick
Gower, Raymond	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Ward, Dame Irene
Grant, Anthony	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Webster, David
Gresham Cooke, R.	Miscampbell, Norman	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Grieve, Percy	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Gurden, Harold	Montgomery, Fergus	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	More, Jasper	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Woodnutt, Mark
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Worsley, Marcus
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Neave, Airey	Wright, Esmond
Harvie Anderson, Miss	Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Younger, Hn. George
Hastings, Stephen	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hawkins, Paul	Nott, John	Mr. Bernard Weatherill and
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Onslow, Cranley	Mr. Hector Monro.
NOES
Abse, Leo	Booth, Albert	Coe, Denis
Albu, Austen	Boston, Terence	Coleman, Donald
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Boyden, James	Concannon, J, D.
Alldritt, Walter	Braddock, Mrs, E. M.	Conlan, Bernard
Allen, Scholefield	Bradley, Tom	Crawshaw, Richard
Armstrong, Ernest	Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Brooks, Edwin	Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Dalyell, Tam
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Bagier, Cordon A. T.	Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Barnes, Michael	Buchan, Norman	Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Barnett, Joel	Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Davies, Harold (Leek)
Beaney, Alan	Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Bidwell, Sydney	Cant, R. B.	de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Binns, John	Carmichael, Neil	Delargy, Hugh
Bishop, E, S.	Carter-Jones, Lewis	Dell, Edmund
Blackburn, F.	Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Dempsey, James
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Chapman, Donald	Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Dickens, James	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Pavitt, Laurence
Dobson, Ray	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Pentland, Norman
Dunn, James A.	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Dunnett, Jack	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Judd, Frank	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Kelley, Richard	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Price, William (Rugby)
Ellis, John	Leadbitter, Ted	Rees, Merlyn
English, Michael	Ledger, Ron	Reynolds, G. W.
Ennals, David	Lee, John (Reading)	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Ensor, David	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	Lipton, Marcus	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P 'c' s)
Faulds, Andrew	Lomas, Kenneth	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Fernyhough, E.	Luard, Evan	Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Finch, Harold	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Roebuck, Roy
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	McBride, Neil	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	McCann, John	Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	MacColl, James	Ryan, John
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	MacDermot, Niall	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Ford, Ben	Macdonald, A. H.	Sheldon, Robert
Forrester, John	McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Fowler, Gerry	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)	Maclennan, Robert	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Freeson, Reginald	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Gardner, Tony	McNamara, J. Kevin	Slater, Joseph
Garrett, W. E.	MacPherson, Malcolm	Snow, Julian
Ginsburg, David	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Spriggs, Leslie
Gourlay, Harry	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Swingler, Stephen
Gregory, Arnold	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Taverne, Dick
Grey, Charles (Durham)	Marks, Kenneth	Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Maxwell, Robert	Thornton, Ernest
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Mayhew, Christopher	Tinn, James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Mendelson, J. J.	Tomney, Frank
Hamling, William	Millan, Bruce	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Hannan, William	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Milne, Edward (Blyth)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Wallace, George
Haseldine, Norman	Molloy, William	Watkins, David (Consett)
Hattersley, Roy	Moonman, Eric	Weitzman, David
Hazell, Bert	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Wellbeloved, James
Heffer, Eric S.	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Henig, Stanley	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Whitaker, Ben
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)	Morris, John (Aberavon)	Whitlock, William
Hooley, Frank	Moyle, Roland	Wilkins, W. A.
Horner, John	Murray, Albert	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Newens, Stan	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)	Norwood, Christopher	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Oakes, Gordon	Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	O'Malley, Brian	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Howie, W.	Oram, Albert E.	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Hoy, James	Orbach, Maurice	Willis, Rt. Hn. George (Edin, E.)
Huckfield, Leslie	Orme, Stanley	Winnick, David
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Oswald, Thomas	Woof, Robert
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Owen, Will (Morpeth)	Wyatt, Woodrow
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Padley, Walter	Yates, Victor
Hynd, John	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Irvine, Sir Arthur	Palmer, Arthur	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	Mr. Joseph Harper and
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Park, Trevor	Mr. Eric Varley.
Janner, Sir Barnett	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &S t. P'cras, S.)	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

2.15 a.m.

Mr. Crossman

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I made a statement. When I announced that the Chancellor was due to speak at 11 o'clock in the morning, that decision had been taken when it was assumed that we would have completed our business. We not having completed our business, the Chancellor has agreed to make a statement tonight if he can be given reasonable time in which to prepare it. I said that I thought an hour would be reasonable time. Therefore, he will come over in an hour's time. I suggest that we interrupt our business for that statement and then complete our business in due course.

Mr. Heath

Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I follow that to say to the Leader of the House that I am sure he has taken the right decision, and we now await the Chancellor's statement.

Mr. Peyton

Why go on?

Mr. Michael Heseltine

I beg to move, in line 8, leave out "three" and insert "five" instead thereof.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

I think that with that Amendment it will be convenient to take the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), in line 8, leave out "three" and insert "twelve" and the Amendment in the name of the Leader of the House, in line 8, leave out "at" and insert "five and a half hours after".

Mr. Heseltine

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The prime purpose of the first Amendment is to increase from three days to five days the time allotted for Report and Third Reading. By their Amendment the Government seek so to alter the time allocated on the three days that the numbers of hours available for discussion is approaching what the Opposition have asked for, but they are compressed into three days, as opposed to being extended over five days.

Before I move on to consider in detail the reasons why we are concerned to achieve as much time as possible for the Report and Third Reading of the Bill, I think that I should comment on the extraordinary way in which the Government have treated the House, and the way in which they have dealt with the Motion.

The day before yesterday, a Business Motion was tabled. As was expected, the Opposition examined it, and then tabled Amendments by which they hoped to achieve certain specific things. Yesterday, however, the Government tabled their Amendments to the Motion, but did so sufficiently late to prevent the Opposition from being able to amend the revised proposals. This meant that our Amendments were not called because they were not relevant to the amended Motion. The Opposition have been precluded from doing their duty because of a device adopted by the Government. No doubt, my hon. Friends will want to comment at length on this tactic.

My second general point by way of introduction relates to the extraordinary statements which have been made from the Government Front Bench when comparing the time allotted by the Conservative Government in 1962 for the Report stage and Third Reading of the 1962 Bill and the time allotted for the comparable stages of this Bill. The Government allotted two days for Report and Third Reading of the 1962 Bill. The Bill which we are now considering is twice the size of the 1962 Measure, and yet we are to be given only three days in which to deal with it on Report and Third Reading. In other words, we have a Bill which is twice the size of the 1962 Act, but we are to be allowed only half as much time again as was allotted in 1962. This is a deliberate act of policy by the Government to preclude the maximum discussion which we have always demanded, and consider essential, for Report and Third Reading.

If we consider the effect of the Government's Amendment, I think it becomes clear that they have sought to come some way to meet us, but they have not come far enough. They have so arranged the time-table that, even with the concessions they have made, it will be difficult for us to do the job that we would like to do. The original Motion suggested three days. The Opposition added two days, and extended the sitting time on each of five days by two hours. This increased the 19½ hours proposed by the Government to 23 hours. The Opposition required 42½ hours. The Government have gone as far as proposing 36 hours. This means that we are losing 6½ hours. That will leave us one full day's sitting short, and that is inadequate. Those 36½ hours will be compressed into three possible consecutive days, so the House will have to sit long hours. Although this is acceptable in Committee, it is an arduous task for the House, when hon. Members have other obligations, like constituency business.

It has become apparent that the Bill is arousing the maximum inquiry in the country. This anxiety has been reflected by my hon. Friends in expressing their indignation and describing the detailed investigations which they will want when the Bill comes back to the House. The Government's proposals will make it difficult for them to do their job.

There are four reasons why even the extended time will be insufficient. First is the assurances given in Committee, which will need examination on Report. Second is the complete muddle in Committee because of the volte face on the manufacturing powers of nationalised industries represented by the Amendments tabled today. Third is the growing disquiet and many new objections in the country. Fourth is the fact that hon. Members will want adequate time for debate on Report and Third Reading. Our requests are reasonable.

So far we have discussed a quarter of the Bill but have received 26 assurances which will need to be considered when the Bill comes back to the House. It is therefore a fair assumption that, by the end of the Committee stage, we will have received 104 assurances, which will have to be effected by Amendments. The Government intend to allow only 36 hours, which will not be restricted to the Opposition: hon. Members opposite will also, rightly, want to take part. But these assurances were given to us, and we shall have at best 36 hours to discuss probably 104 Amendments—or, at very best, 20 minutes per Amendment. That is asking too much. We are not trying to obstruct the time-table but are asking simply that the time should be extended—and only to 24 minutes per Amendment, which will at least give us a chance to have 20 minutes to ourselves.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger (Ilford, North)

This calculation means, then, that hon. Members who put down new Amendments on Report or raise again matters which they do not consider were satisfactorily dealt with in Committee will have zero time?

Mr. Heseltine

Yes, because we are not omniscient, and have undoubtedly missed points in Committee, and others will require amendment on Report; but even if we dealt only with the assurances which we were given, we would be limited to 20 minutes per Amendment, and that is not enough. It is easy to make these statements from the Front Bench, and I would not want to mislead the House into thinking that the assurances which we were given are not of major significance. I will, therefore, describe some examples of those assurances. When we were dealing with the powers of passenger transport authorities in connection with assisting in the promotion of organisations and companies, the Minister of State said that it would not be possible for them to involve themselves in a subsidiary company outside their direct control if that subsidiary was conducting itself in a way which did not comply with the powers given to the authorities. It seemed that, by the 32 subsections in Clause 10, they could involve themselves in such activities. When we pointed this out, the hon. Gentleman gave this assurance: I have already spelled out the intention. undertake to look at whether further qualification is required of the word ' assisting' to ensure that my intention is made clean"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 15th February, 1968; c. 755.] When we were discussing the brief which is given by mandate as a form of statute to the passenger transport authorities, we considered whether they should organise transportation services within the passenger transport areas. Nothing could be more far reaching and significant to the methods by which the P.T.A.s will decide to invest capital into the reorganisation and administration of transportation services in the areas designated by Order by the Minister. The Opposition contended that this should be done only after a full examination of the financial benefits that would result from each investment decision.

The Minister of State gave this detailed assurance: However, because I agree that this is only of matter of emphasis, on behalf of my right hon. Friend I can say that we are prepared to reconsider the whole of this wording in respect of the terms of reference of the P.T.A.s as they affect plans and responsibilities for traffic and parking and so on with plans for public transport, and my right hon. Friend will endeavour to produce on Report a redraft as the basis for general agreement among hon. Members."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee F, 1st February, 1968; c. 515.] This is the whole basis within which these authorities will operate. This matter is to be redrafted and I can imagine nothing more fundamental and demanding of our examination.

We were concerned about whether or not the definition of "vicinity" was significant and needed closer examination. It is provided that the P.T.A.s should be able to run services outside their areas; in their vicinity. It is also provided that the losses of suburban railway services can be put on the backs of the ratepayers living within the P.T.A. areas, where these rail services cost their areas and are within the vicinity of those areas. Imagine the feeling of ratepayers who must subsidise railway services outside their areas. For that reason, we wanted "vicinity" to be tightly drawn.

We tabled a probing Amendment in which we defined "vicinity" as not being further than 20 miles from a P.T.A. area. Our dilemma in Committee is that we are discussing undefined areas, since we do not know where the P.T.A.s will be established.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler)

The Government dealt with this.

Mr. Heseltine

The Minister gave me a specific assurance that he would deal with the matter on Report. It is this type of important Amendment on which we will have only 20 minutes to spend on Report. We will have this planning blight, which will affect anybody operating a bus service or restaurant car and so on, in the area immediately around to a P.T.A. and outside that area unless "vicinity" is precisely defined.

Mr. Swingler

This is the sort of thing from which we have suffered so often in Committee; whenever a Minister has given an assurance, it has been challenged, pulled to pieces, argued around, undermined and voted against. This makes it difficult to recognise the sincerity of the Opposition when assurances are sought.

Mr. Heseltine

I have always given way to the Minister of State, unlike the right hon. Lady who will not give way to me, I am prepared to do so. I shall want to look at the help he has given to the Committee. One of the reasons why the Committee has been held up on so many occasions is that half the time we have had to explain to the Minister of State what the Bill is about. When he has understood that, we have had to explain why it was wrong in the first place. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members opposite do not like it; it is embarrassing to them to a degree. I suspect that the revelations to come later this morning will be more embarrassing.

Another example of the sort of matters which we want to discuss on Report is the provision whereby passenger transport authorities can carry passengers outside their own areas. We understand that there is no restriction on this.

Mr. Lubbock

Does the hon. Member think that that is the reason why the Foreign Secretary is now on the Front Bench?

Mr. Heseltine

The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has hit on a vital point. It is perfectly permissible for passenger transport authorities to carry passengers outside the United Kingdom, where they would become the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary. We obtained this assurance from the Minister of State: My right hon. Friend will study very carefully what has been said about the words: 'in connection with the exercise of their powers' in relation to the power of the Executive to run services between places outside the area". This is a major aspect which we are to consider on Report.

I will read another major concession, by way of assurance only so far, given by the Minister of State. We were discussing the case where a passenger transport authority might obtain a bus company in the private sector and where it was found that the authority was indulging in activities for which it had no authority. It all hinged on whether or not, when the organisation was taken over by the passenger transport authority, the powers were transferred or acquired. This is a tight legal point. The point was made with great force from our side that the words in legal terms meant the same. Anyone familiar with acquiring property or businesses will realise that there is always a transfer once an acquisition has taken place. We received an assurance that this matter would be dealt with. If it is dealt with, it will have the effect of preventing passenger transport authorities from going into virtually limitless fields in competition with the private sector. The Minister of State gave this assurance: Between now and Clause 17 I undertake to look very closely, together with the lawyers, into the interpretation of this provision".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 14th February, 1968, cc. 640. 673.] Then we marched on to Clause 17. When we got there, one week later, the Minister of State said he had not had time to go into the matter but he still intended to do so.

Mr. Swingler

It is a lie.

Mr. Webster

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard the Minister of State say, "It is a lie". Will he withdraw it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

If the Minister of State said that, even in a sedentary position, I must ask him to withdraw it.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Swingler

I withdraw it. In fact, the hon. Gentleman knows full well—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I withdraw what I said. I gave an assurance, but the Opposition voted against it. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that.

Mr. Heseltine

The Minister of State will have the opportunity to speak and to quote the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in Standing Committee. The right hon. Lady's practice is contagious. She said in Committee: That is a lie."—OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 21st February, 1968; c. 999.] This is an example of the old rôle of Victorian courtesy about which we hear so much in public from the Minister but so little from her in Standing Committee. This was another example of a major concession by way of an assurance from the Minister of State. All these matters will have to be dealt with. They are examples of the sorts of things for which we are to be given only 20 minutes at the maximum. I do not think it is enough.

We move on to the aspect of this affair which concerns the Minister of State. I am sure that he will want to deal with this point. I shall be delighted to hear his explanations. This is the question of the muddle which has occurred over the financial duties and obligations of the nationalised boards and authorities.

Mr. Swingler

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman entitled on this Amendment to discuss the merits of the issues which are involved in the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Amendment relates to the amount of time that the House should devote to Report. Hon. Members are entitled to give illustrations of why they think that three days will be inadequate and why there should be five days, but there is a limit to the number of illustrations that can be given.

Mr. Michael Shaw

As every minute passes and my hon. Friend's explanations go deeper and deeper into the reasons why we need additional time, all the more valid does the demand for extra time become, not only because of the content of the Bill, but also because of the opposition my hon. Friends have encounted from the Government in Committee.

Mr. Iremonger

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to your ruling that there is a limit to the number of examples which can be given, can you help the House by stating what that limit might be? I was finding the examples being given by my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) most helpful, because I am prepared to be persuaded to vote on the Amendment. Each example given by my hon. Friend persuades me just a little more. Just as I was on the point of being persuaded, it was ruled from the Chair that no more illustrations could be given and it appeared that my vote might be forfeit.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

My view is that the limit has been reached, because the scope of the Amendment is restricted. The Amendment is limited to the narrow question as to the number of days to be devoted to Report stage. It is not open on the Amendment to traverse the whole of the proceedings in Standing Committee.

Mr. Michael Heseltine

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gave way to the Minister of State, but just before doing so I had made it clear that I had finished with the examples I intended to give. I had moved on. It was on my next point that the Minister of State interrupted me.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

Further to that point of order. How are ordinary back benchers to be in a position to judge whether the Amendment is realistic if we do not know the full extent of what we have been offered by the Government before Report? It is impossible for us to know whether the Amendment is realistic. I should like many more illustrations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

In arguing whether three days are adequate for the Report stage or whether it should be five days, on this Amendment, it is possible to give a few illustrations of what would be required on the Report stage, but it is not possible to rehearse the whole of the Committee stage proceedings.

Mr. Graham Page

This is another point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood you to say that this was a narrow Amendment. I had previously understood that we were discussing with this an Amendment in my name which extends the period to 12 days, so perhaps we can multiply my hon. Friend's examples by three or four. There are also the Government Amendments, including the new paragraph 7 which is very wide.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That does not affect my ruling.

Sir J. Eden

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I understood you to say that my hon. Friend could quote from a few examples as justification for his argument. I submit that he made it clear in opening that the Opposition in the Committee stage so far has already been given no fewer than 26 separate assurances. As I understand it, he has given only three or four illustrations of the significance and importance of these Government assurances. It is right that the House should be acquainted with the degree of importance which the Government attach to the assurances they have given to the Opposition. How is it that any hon. Member in this House is able to judge when a sufficient number of examples have been given out of the 26 important assurances?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

May I remind the hon. Member of what I have said? There must be some limit to the number of illustrations that are given in support of this Amendment. I went on to say that it was not possible to rehearse everything said in the Committee stage.

Mr. Michael Shaw

Would a definition of the limit be a number sufficient for my hon. Friend to have proved his case? Do you now so rule that he has proved his case, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I do not think I can qualify my ruling, except to repeat that there is some limit, and that it must be a reasonable limit, of the illustrations from the proceedings in the Committee stage which can be given on this Amendment.

Mr. Heseltine

I said that there was a second problem which we had to overcome when we got back to the Report stage, and I hope that my hon. Friends will bear with me if I do not go into detail, on more Amendments, because I feel that the five that I have given are at least an hors d'oeuvre for what is to come on Report.

Throughout the discussions in Standing Committee F, we have, as an Opposition, continually tried to make the Government accept a situation where, at least in part, the trading activities of the nationalised boards and authorities remain, in practice, identical to those of commercial organisations. We have argued—and have put down Amendments—that where it is possible, the Boards should operate as commercial concerns. There is a distinction where a nationalised transport service has provided that which could not be provided in the public interest unless it was nationalised; and when this is subject to the cost limits of social and national considerations, it is impossible for commercial practise to be applied, but where it is possible, these activities should be on a commercial basis.

We have argued this point consistently. If I try to explain why it is now necessary, as a result of the Amendment put down this morning by the Government, for us on Report to go back right across the entire discussion in order to try to establish what the position is, the House will understand the difficulties we have had.

At 11.40 p.m. on Wednesday, 28th February I asked the Minister of State why the discretion to behave as a commercial enterprise was left out of the directives to the National Bus Company. Five minutes later the Minister of State explained that the National Bus Company would trade as a commercial concern and that there was no need to become anxious about the situation. The situation was spelt out quite clearly. The hon. Gentleman said: If the hon. Gentleman turns to Clause 27, he will see that Section 18—entitled 'financial duty of boards'—of the 1962 Act is applied to the bus company, with the proviso that that is subject and without prejudice to Clause 38 of the Bill, which deals with the duty of breaking even. Therefore, it is made clear that the National Bus Company will operate on similar lines to the T.H.C. in relation to its bus undertakings and subsidiary companies, … At 11.50 p.m. I pressed the Minister of State to explain whether he had got it right. He was prepared to justify the position he had taken up when I asked him: Is he prepared to accept Amendments in respect of the subsidiaries of the Bus Company that would be … run in a commercial way? Will he accept that Amendment? He replied: It is not necessary. At 12.30 a.m. we pressed him again on this point. I referred to: …Section 29 of the 1962 Act, which gives specific instructions to the Holding Company to hold and manage its securities and carry on its objects as though it were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise. These words are not in the 1968 Bill,…That is why it is no use talking about the comparability of the financial disciplines. They are totally different. The Minister of State replied: I do not wish to pursue the argument, but that is the basic position. as he had outlined it.

At 5.45 in the morning I said that the Minister of State gave an assurance in the House on 12th February, 1968 and that I was convinced that he did it sincerely, but that it was based on a misunderstanding of the provisions of the two Acts. This was nearly seven hours after we had first started pursuing the matter, and all through that time the Minister of State had told us that we had not read the Bill, that we had got it wrong, that we did not understand what was going on, and that these organisations would operate as commercial concerns.

Then, at 5.50 on that morning, the Minister of State said: I am very glad to have an opportunity to make an apology to the Committee. It is clear to me that I misled the Committee in an earlier discussion this evening …"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 28th February, 1968; c. 1276–1366.]

Sir Harmar Nicholls

On a point of order. Is it not against the rules of order for any hon. Member to hiss?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I must say that I am finding some difficulty in hearing the hon. Member.

Mr. Heseltine

The position has become quite clear. One of the all-night sittings about which the Minister talked so glibly this afternoon was devoted to trying to persuade the Minister of State that he was wrong. At the end of the sitting he was compelled to admit that he was wrong.

We then moved on to Clause 38 which deals with the financial provisions for the nationalised boards and authorities and we had precisely the same discussion all over again. The Minister of State once again said: They are established, not to make a profit but to serve the public, but they should have a duty to cover their costs. 3 a.m.

To make sure that everyone on the Committee knew exactly what we were talking about, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) confirmed exactly what we had been saying. He said: One small matter concerns me about the break-even phrase, and that is that similar phrases were inserted in the 1947 Act. remember that the British Transport Commission took upon itself to put further interpretations on the vague phraseology about breaking even."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 12th March, 1968; c. 1657–62.]

Mr. Swingler

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened for 10 minutes to a sustained personal attack on myself with many misrepresentations and distortions to which those of us on the Standing Committee are accustomed from the hon. Member. If he is able to enter into a discussion about the financial duties of the nationalised boards and the position of the Passenger Transport Authorities I take that, although it would clearly be out of order, I will be permitted to reply on these points. As we have had a long, selected extract from the report of the proceedings in the Committee, do I take it that we are going to return to the discussions which have been taking place in Standing Committee F?

Mr. Speaker

I have not heard the earlier discussion. It is for the Chair to see that the debate is in order.

Mr. Heseltine

I have placed before the House in great detail all the arguments which took place on the financial duties of the authorities and the boards. It is quite clear that out of these discussions the Minister and the Minister of State were arguing that the boards and the authorities should be given a provision to break even and we were saying that they should be expected to operate—

Mr. Speaker

We cannot amend the Bill or discuss the Bill on this Motion.

Mr. Swingler

The hon. Member has now made it plain to you, Mr. Speaker, that he has been arguing about what should be the financial duties of the nationalised boards and the provisions which should be made. That is exactly what I was explaining to you. That is what the hon. Member has been talking about for 10 minutes. I would like you to rule, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order to carry on, on the Floor of the House, the discussion which has been going on repetitiously for a long time in Standing Committee F.

Mr. Heseltine

Further to that point of order. May I explain what I am trying to put to the House? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member has the right to try to explain.

Mr. Heseltine

The purpose of the revelation which has come from this side is to show that we have had a whole range of discussions in which we were seeking to establish what the financial duties of the boards were. As a result of the Amendment put down by the Government, the whole of the past discussion has been nullified.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot discuss an Amendment which the Government have put down to that Bill. We are on the guillotine Motion now.

Mr. Heseltine

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Report stage is the only stage at which we shall have an opportunity to discuss the effect of the Amendment put down this morning, as it refers to Clauses already passed in Standing Committee. That is why it was necessary to quote at such length in order to show the area of disagreement affected by that Amendment. It is a substantial argument.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot discuss the merits of the Bill.

Mr. Heseltine

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must listen to Mr. Speaker when he is making a ruling. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the merits of what is said in Committee during attempts to amend the Bill. He can ask for time on the Report stage and that is the purpose of the Amendment before the House.

Mr. Heseltine

That is correct, Mr. Speaker. I am seeking to explain why we need time on the Report stage because it is too late to deal with the matter in Committee. The Amendment to the Bill was put down this morning because the Government have changed their minds half way through our proceedings in Committee. It will have the widest repercussions on the Passenger Transport Authorities, which have already been discussed in Committee, and on Report we shall want to examine the effects. What we tried to do at the beginning of our discussions—[Interruption.]—in Committee—

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is difficult for an hon. Member to address the House against a background of conversation.

Mr. Heseltine

In our early discussions in Committee, we tried to avoid the temptation to put down Amendments which would cause trouble to the Minister in implementing her proposals. But we must look again at that tolerance. People, including the local authorities, now better understand the effects of these proposals. We deliberately said in Committee that, with Passenger Transport Authorities, we did not want to make provisions for public inquiry.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is on the merits of the Bill again. He must argue for more time. That is the purpose of the Amendment we are discussing.

Mr. Heseltine

We wish to obtain time on Report to examine the possibilities of there being a public inquiry before authorities are set up in areas.

Sir J. Eden

My hon. Friend has given a number of important examples why it is necessary that, on Report and Third Reading, there should be allowed at least five days rather than three. Now he has advanced a number of other arguments which seem to be going towards the lengthening of the periods still further along the lines of the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), to the effect that not even five days would be enough. Is my hon. Friend now speaking to that Amendment?

Mr. Speaker

Order. Interventions must be brief.

Mr. Heseltine

That is the third provision on which we are arguing for more time on Report. Certain anxieties are manifesting themselves in the country which will need further consideration. The Bill conflicts with virtually every piece of professional advice, is not substantiated by detailed research and is directly contrary—

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is not the Third Reading debate. The hon. Gentleman must keep to the Amendment before the House.

Mr. Heseltine

I do not wish to digress from your Rulings, Mr. Speaker. But a whole range of points on the Bill have emerged which we shall have to deal with on Report. I have sought to indicate where those elements are, I believe they arise because of the anxieties, particularly among local authorities, and we want to explore them and deal with them on Report.

I am distressed that under the timing now to be applied to Report stage there will not be adequate time, and we will be restricted to 20 minutes of discussion, even if all the discussions are based upon assurances given to the Committee. That it is not adequate for full discussion on Report.

Mr. Graham Page

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, about 12 hours ago I put to you a point of order as to the acceptance of manuscript Amendments. We are discussing the new paragraph 7, which went on the Order Paper at a time when it was impossible for us to make Amendments to it. There are Amendments on the Order Paper, which, by the simple expedient of altering the number of the line, would apply to the new paragraph.

There is also a perfectly simple Amendment on the Order Paper which needs only another very simple alteration, restoring part of the Government's original paragraph 7. I ask you whether you would accept manuscript Amendments to paragraph 7 as it now appears on the Order Paper. These Amendments would come as no surprise to the House because the contents of them are on the Order Paper and the alteration would be simply in order to bring them into line with the present Amendments. There are three manuscript Amendments. I ask you whether you would accept them.

Mr. Speaker

Perhaps the hon. Member would bring the manuscript Amendments to me.

Mrs. Castle

The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Heseltine) has moved his Amendment with all the energetic indignation to which we have become accustomed in Committee. He has also shown his usual capacity to make the worst of a good concession. I want to draw to the attention of the House the important concession made to the Opposition, contained in the Government Amendment.

The position is that we have two alternative propositions before us. We have the hon. Gentleman's, which is that we should substitute five days for three. As anyone will be able to calculate, that gives a total, on Report, and Third Reading, of 32½ hours. As I explained earlier, the Government are anxious to provide adequate time, and on a far more generous scale than was provided by our predecessors when they introduced their Transport Bill.

I noticed with interest that the hon. Gentleman repudiated indignantly the suggestion that the Conservative Party in the 1962 Act was not being as generous as we are. He said: "We gave two days for a much smaller Bill, but the Government are only giving three." With his usual selectivity, he failed to mention the hours in question in both cases. The hours made available on the Report Stage and Third Reading of the 1962 debates reached the magnificent total of 14. The Government, in putting forward their Amendments, are offering a very substantial improvement on the position.

The effect of the Government's Amendments is that, instead of terminating proceedings on the Bill at 10 p.m. on each allotted day, the proceedings can continue over for an additional five and a half hours, which would normally be taken by the House continuing its Sitting until 11.30 p.m. and then resuming at 10 o'clock the following morning, and continuing so as to make the total of five and a half hours after 10 p.m. Another effect of accepting the revised paragraph 7—that is, the second of the Government's Amendments on the Paper—would be to provide extra time if discussion on the Bill started after 3.30 p.m., while there would also be extra time if the Bill were delayed because of the operation of Standing Order No. 9.

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page

This is really no concession at all. Indeed, it is less than was granted originally. Under the terms of paragraph 7, any extra time will be lost if Government time is used for statements after 3.30 p.m. It is really no use at all for the right hon. Lady to come here and tell us that she is making concessions.

Mrs. Castle

I shall be delighted to answer the hon. Gentleman if only the House will listen. It is complete nonsense for him to say that, after giving an extra five and a half hours in each of the three days, there is no concession simply because a small amount of business statement time is included. We have taken particular care to exclude any time taken up as a result of Motions under Standing Order No. 9, or because of private business. The "injury" time, as it has come to be called popularly, is only a small fraction which the hon. Member knows is not taken into account on any normal Bill or Motion.

Therefore, I would recommend that the House should adopt the Government Amendment, giving us an additional 36 hours of time, and reject that of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), which, whatever he may have said, would give us only 32½ hours.

Mr. Graham Page

rose—

Mr. Speaker

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have not accepted his manuscript Amendments.

Mr. Page

We are also discussing an Amendment about the extension of the time for the Report stage, Third Reading and re-committal. It was proposed that there should be three days, and then the proposal was for five, but now it is for 12.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I cannot hear what the hon. Member is saying.

Mr. Page

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I could hardly hear myself. What I was going to say was that my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) proposed an increase from three to five days, although I thought that he was talking himself out of his own Amendment into mine; I say that because he so convinced the House that it was not proper to have five days, but to have 12.

It is surely not too much to ask for one day for Report on each of these 10 Bills. The right hon. Lady will recall what I am referring to, and I think she will also agree that one-tenth of a day is not too much for the Third Reading. Yet we are now asked to deal with that in a most exceptional way.—[Interruption.]

If the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House can hold his seat no longer because there is business of major importance to discuss, then I shall certainly give way. But I would remind him that what we have now been discussing for many hours is important business. We are talking about a major and far-reaching Bill, and we are being forced to accept a Committee stage which is wholly inadequate. It is important to deal with the Bill properly, but that is quite impossible on a short Committee stage and to be cut down on Report stage as well will only mean that this Bill will be turned into a statute in a shockingly bad state. It is a bad Bill now, and we shall not have an opportunity to improve it. Had we succeeded on the earlier Amendments—[Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the House does not wish to listen to me any longer, and, if I have an indication that we shall have a statement if I sit down, I will sit down at once.