BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

HC Deb 16 May 1968 vol 764 cc1404-22

Mr. Heath

May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart)

Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 20TH MAY—Progress on the remaining stages of the Town and Country Planning Bill.

TUESDAY, 21ST MAY—Second Reading of the Prices and Incomes Bill.

Motion under Standing Order No. 43A relating to the Finance Bill.

Motion relating to the Import Duties (General) (No. 4) Order.

WEDNESDAY, 22ND MAY—Second Reading of the Gas and Electricity Bill.

Second Reading of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.

Completion of the remaining stages of the Town and Country Planning Bill.

THURSDAY, 23RD MAY—Remaining stages of the Family Allowances and National Insurance (No. 2) Bill.

Debate on a Motion to take note of the Report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology on the United Kingdom Nuclear Reactor Programme.

FRIDAY, 24TH MAY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY, 27TH MAY—Progress on the remaining stages of the Transport Bill [1st Allotted Day].

Mr. Heath

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, by guillotining a very controversial Finance Bill which imposes over £900 million in additional taxation on the people, he is dismally failing in his responsibility to the minority parties in this House? He has already pushed the Bill upstairs into Committee, where only a limited number of hon. Members can discuss it. Now he is even curtailing the time available there.

Has there been any other example of a Finance Bill being guillotined since Ramsay Macdonald guillotined the Finance Bill in June, 1931? Why is it that this Chancellor of the Exchequer is failing to get his Finance Bill through in the normal way where his predecessors succeeded? Is it because his weakness is matched only by his arrogance?

Mr. Peart

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will answer such charges in the debate. This is certainly the first time that the Standing Order has been invoked since 1931, but I remind the Leader of the Opposition that my right hon. Friend had hoped to settle a timetable by voluntary agreement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why should he?"] Hon. Members must listen. My right hon. Friend hoped to reach an agreement with the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who leads the Opposition in the Standing Committee, but there has been no desire on the part of the Opposition, and, indeed, a refusal, to discuss, let alone agree, a timetable.

Mr. Barnett

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the tactics of the Opposition upstairs can only bring Parliament into disrepute? Is he further aware that it has been shown that the Committee can work to the advantage of the taxpayer generally, but that the Opposition have shown themselves to prefer to put party politics first? I hope that he will continue with the proposal to introduce a Guillotine.

Mr. Peart

The Motion will be debated next week when hon. Members will have the opportunity to discuss the merits.

Mr. Thorpe

Is the right hon. Gentleman a ware that many hon. Members hoped that the new procedure for the Finance Bill would be a success? May I congratulate him on being among those of many of his colleagues who are reactivating the memory of Ramsay Macdonald in more ways than one?

Are we to take it that this new departure from precedent on the most important Bill which the House has to consider during a Parliamentary Session shows that the Government now regret that they took the Bill upstairs? Do we take it that they would prefer now to consider it in Committee of the whole House?

Mr. Peart

I do not want to be involved at this stage in a debate with the right hon. Gentleman. I am announcing what the business will be for next week. I have said that this is the first time the Standing Order has been invoked since 1931. It was the House's decision that the Finance Bill should be taken upstairs and I am conforming to that. I have already pointed out that we have sought to achieve a voluntary agreement on a timetable, but that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West made no attempt to co-operate.

Mr. Shinwell

I want to turn to what is perhaps a more important question. Why is my right hon. Friend only providing one day for the Second Reading of the Prices and Incomes Bill? Is he aware that a very large number of hon. Members will want to address the House on the subject? Is he aware of the controversial and explosive material in the Bill and of the objections which will be raised to some parts of it? Will he reconsider and give two days for the debate?

Mr. Peart

I am aware of my right hon. Friend's views, but at this stage I cannot alter the business.

Hon. Members

Why not? Why not?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The House cannot hear whom I call.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the decision to guillotine the Finance Bill for the first time for nearly 40 years utterly and finally discredits the decision to send the Committee stage upstairs?

Mr. Peart

I cannot accept that.

Mr. Mendelson

Does my right hon. Friend realise that there are many different but sincerely held views in the House and the country on the Prices and Incomes Bill, which is a most important Measure, and that he will be degrading the House of Commons if he does not allow more time for the Second Reading debate?

What are the Government afraid of? Why do not they want a full debate? If my right hon. Friend does not provide sufficient time for all these points of view to be expressed, it puts Mr. Speaker in the impossible position of having to announce that, while 60 hon. Members wish to speak, he can call only 15 or 16. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this decision?

Mr. Peart

I recognise my hon. Friend's views on this matter. I am prepared to explain to him the programme, but I cannot at this stage concede his request.

Mr. John Hall

Does not the right hon. Gentleman concede that, when he is being subjected to denunciation from both sides of the House, there may be something wrong? Does not he agree that it is untrue to claim that there has been filibustering on the Finance Bill? Is he aware that, apart from the leaders of both sides, yesterday the longest speech was made by a Labour back bencher? Does not he agree that to suggest that we should voluntarily have placed our heads under the Guillotine by arranging a timetable between the two sides is no excuse for his compulsorily putting our heads under it?

Mr. Peart

The hon. Gentleman knows the procedure.

Mr. Swain

May I draw my right hon. friend's attention to Motion 278, standing in the names of 154 of my right hon. and hon. Friend's and my own, asking for time to debate this very important matter next week or at least before the Recess?

[That this House has no confidence in Mr. Cecil King as a member of the Board of a nationalised industry and calls upon the Minister of Power to terminate his office as a part-time member of the National Coal Board forthwith.]

Mr. Peart

I understand the sincere and strong views of my hon. Friends who have signed the Motion, but I cannot find the time next week. I will convey those views to the Minister responsible.

Sir A. V. Harvey

Is the Leader of the House aware that he has now confirmed the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), that this country is rapidly becoming a police State?

Mr. Peart

The extravagant language of the hon. Member will not be accepted.

Mr. Palmer

Dealing with next Thursday's business, may I say, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, that we are delighted that our Report is to be debated then, but a little disappointed that there should be any preliminary business at all? Could my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the maximum time will be devoted to the debate on the Report?

Mr. Peart

I am prepared to consider a suspension of the rule, and to allow time to make up for the previous debate.

Mr. Turton

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the Select Committee on Procedure recommended that, in the event of the Finance Bill being taken upstairs there should, at the minimum, be two days on Recommittal, as well as the normal period for Report?

Mr. Peart

That does not alter the fact that my right hon. Friend who has been leading for the Government in Committee feels that it is essential, because of a breakdown in the voluntary system, to introduce this Motion.

Mr. Orme

Returning to the issue of the Prices and Incomes Bill, is my right hon. Friend aware that we urge a two-day debate so that all views can be expressed, including the diverse views existing between my hon. Friends and myself? I respect their point of view and I know that they respect mine—[HON. MEMBERS: "Do they?"]—This is a great democratic issue and I wish to address myself to the Leader of the House.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this is a serious matter, affecting millions of people, and that the views of the trade unions, and opposing views, ought to be heard in the fullest debate in this House? Is he aware that I believe it to be in the interests of Parliamentary democracy that this should be so? Would he reconsider his decision?

Mr. Peart

I have replied to my hon. Friend's question previously, and I affirm what I said then.

Mr. Ridsdale

As Government business is in such chaos, could we have an early debate on procedure, so that we can debate more important questions on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Peart

There is no question of chaos here. My answer, anyway, is, "Not next week".

Mr. Moonman

Is my right hon. Friend aware that long after the fun and games made by the Opposition over his business statement regarding the Finance Bill has been forgotten, there will still be great dismay on this side of the House over the fact that he has only given one day for the Prices and Incomes Bill? Would he reconsider this? This is a direct appeal to him.

Mr. Peart

I have said that I would consider the views of my hon. Friends who feel strongly about this. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Answer now."] I have made a statement and I will not be intimidated by someone speaking from his seat.

Mr. Carlisle

Can the Leader of the House say whether, during the course of next week, the Patronage Secretary is proposing to move the writs for the by-elections in Oldham, West, and Nelson and Colne? If not, is this due to a fear of the outcome on the part of the Government?

Mr. Peart

I could not give a specific answer on this.

Mr. Michael Foot

Returning to the question of the single day's debate on the Prices and Incomes Bill, will my right hon. Friend recognise that he is putting himself, and maybe the House and the Government, in a very difficult situation in this sense—that it would be possible to secure the extra day for which we are asking by altering the Motion about the Whitsun Recess? Is he aware that if he cannot give us satisfaction on this matter, he might not get that Motion?

Mr. Peart

My hon. Friend has put a fair point. May I say that I will consider this question.

Mr. Peyton

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this announcement of the guillotine procedure for the Finance Bill is a reflection of the incapacity of Treasury Ministers either to manage their own side of the Committee or to conduct successfuly a disastrous experiment thrust down the throat of Parliament by his predecessor the Lord President of the Council?

Mr. Peart

As I have said, the House made its decision. I would have wished that we could have had a voluntary agreement on this upstairs.

Mr. Cant

Would my right hon. Friend make it quite clear to the country that hon. Members opposite have deliberately sabotaged—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—a very interesting experiment.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot have a debate on the Guillotine Motion.

Mr. Cant

Is he aware that we spent eight hours, seven minutes, discussing when the Finance Bill Committee should sit and whether there should be two fans or three? Is he aware that we spent seven hours and eight minutes discussing—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. We must pursue this in detail on the Guillotine debate.

Mr. Cant

Is he aware that we spent seven hours eight minutes discussing—

Mr. John Hall

On a point of order. I am a little puzzled by what is happening. Are we now entering on a debate on this matter, because if so I would like to join in?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman should have heard Mr. Speaker's Ruling, Mr. Marten.

Mr. Marten rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Hon. Members must possess themselves in patience. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) was interrupted on a point of order and must finish his business question.

Mr. Goodhew

On a point of order. I hesitate to dispute what has been said, but I understand that I heard you call my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman knows that Mr. Speaker knows that he had done that. But an hon. Gentleman on his feet was interrupted by a point of order, and has a right to complete his question.

Mr. Cant

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware of the utter disgust felt by hon. Members on this side at the behaviour of hon. Members opposite who sit on that Committee? Is he aware that this could have been a most interesting experiment?

Mr. Marten

Dealing with the Prices and Incomes Bill debate, if the Leader of the House concludes that we can have only one day on the Second Reading, is there a chance of having the Committee stage on the Floor of the House? Otherwise, can he give an assurance that the Guillotine will not be used in Committee?

Mr. Peart

I cannot go into that. I note what the hon. Member has said, but I am discussing next week's business.

Mr. Pavitt

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, after yesterday's debate of eight hours in the Finance Bill Committee it was obvious that there was no option but that there should be a Guillotine Motion? Is he aware that of all the many Committees upon which I have served—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I know the keenness on both sides on this matter, but this is business question time. We shall be debating the Guillotine Motion next week.

Mr. Pavitt

Will my right hon. Friend, in considering the times for this Motion, take into consideration the comments made by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), which were obviously meant to sabotage the whole intention of having the Finance Bill in Committee?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

Can the Leader of the House tell us whether next Tuesday the Patronage Secretary will exercise his new-found right to speak from the Front Bench to explain to his colleagues on the back benches why they are not to be able to exercise their right to speak?

Mr. McNamara

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, now that the Transport Bill has emerged triumphantly from Committee, we can expect a statement next week of further progress and reforms in transport, namely, the complete nationalisation of the ports, with worker participation?

Mr. Peart

That is another matter, but it is not for me to answer.

Mr. Sharples

I was not quite clear whether I heard the right hon. Gentleman rightly when he replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). Did he decline to give an assurance that there would be no Guillotine on the Prices and Incomes Bill?

Mr. Peart

How could I when I was discussing the business for next week?

Mr. James Johnson

Is the Minister aware that our short fisheries debate of half a day was even more shortened last night? Will he kindly think of giving us a full day for fisheries before the end of the Summer Recess?

Mr. Peart

The end of the Summer Recess is a long time away. I note what my hon. Friend has said.

Dame Irene Ward

The Leader of the House said that he would consider the representations made by his side that they might have more than one day for the Prices and Incomes Bill. When may the House expect an answer from him?

Mr. Peart

If I achieve or alter something I will inform hon. Members. I always do that.

Mr. Dickens rose—

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The House wants to hear business questions. Mr. Dickens.

Mr. Dickens

When the Leader of the Opposition is quite ready—

Mr. Roebuck

On a point of order. Those of us on this side of the House who are following these sensible exchanges with great attention are in a little difficulty because of a bit of a powwow which is going on on the Opposition Front Bench. I would ask for a little bit of hush.

Mr. Speaker

There has been what the hon. Gentleman chose to call a bit of a pow-wow going on from both sides of the House during the last 20 minutes.

Mr. Dickens

Now that I have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. Rose

On a point of order. Is it not gross discourtesy and contempt of the House for the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip to confer in this way while the House is dealing with business questions?

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is not a point of order. Mr. Dickens.

Mr. Roebuck rose—

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. Speaker

The House may be enjoying itself, but there is plenty of business ahead on the Order Paper. Mr. Dickens.

Mr. Roebuck

On a point of order. Despite protests from this side of the House, and although their attention has been drawn to the fact, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip continue to cause a great deal of disturbance and prevent the House from proceeding in an orderly and dignified manner. May I ask you to take some action about this, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

I have already dealt with that point of order twice.

Mr. Lubbock

On a point of order. A minute or so ago I distinctly observed the Leader of the House talking to the ex-Leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We might now profitably get back to business questions.

Mr. Heath

Mr. Speaker, can you not rule firmly and clearly that there is not, and never has been, anything out of order in the House in hon. Members quietly conferring with one another?

Mr. Speaker

I did so rule twice.

Mr. Dickens

In view of the hours spent on footling points of order in the Finance Committee, is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to introduce a Guillotine is absolutely right and fully justified?

Mr. Peart

Yes.

Mr. Dickens

On the other hand, is he aware shat his decision to reconsider the timetabling—

Mr. Speaker

We can only have one Business question per hon. Member.

Sir J. Eden

Is it not quite clear that the decision to send the Bill upstairs in the first place was an effort to stifle proper discussion? Does the Leader of the House not realise that the Finance Bill, of all Bills, is in a very special position? Is it not an example of the Chancellor's total indifference to the normal courtesy to the House, and of his cowardice, that he did not make this point last night to the Committee?

Dr. David Kerr

On a point of order. It does not appear to me that that was a Business question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am endeavouring to keep the House to questions of business.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that what he is doing with the Finance Bill and with the Prices and Incomes Bill he is now also attempting to do with a Select Committee's Report? After all the effort put in by hon. Members who have worked in the Select Committee on Science and Technology, on the nuclear reactor programme, which surely is an important issue, does he not agree that to squeeze a debate on the Report into the second half of the day is an outrage?

Mr. Peart

I am rather surprised at the hon. Gentleman saying that. I have given an assurance that any time lost by previous business will be made up; in other words, hon. Members will have adequate time. I have been anxious to have Select Committee Reports debated, as indeed the Select Committee's Report on Agriculture was debated the other day. If the hon. Member looks at my reply very carefully, he will see that there will be adequate time for debate.

Mr. Murray

In view of my right hon. Friend's failure to give time to Motion 278 next week, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power to seek the early abdication of the "king"?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a business question.

Mr. Iain Macleod

Would the Leader of the House address himself to the main point of next week's business? In some years there is an agreement on the Finance Bill, in some years there is no agreement, but every Chancellor of all three parties, with the exception of the year 1931, has always got the Finance Bill without a Guillotine. Will he address himself to that and realise that the failure this year is directly due to the petulance, insolence and arrogance of the Chancellor?

Mr. Peart

The answer is really no Sir. I am informed that the right hon. Gentleman was, unfortunately, uncooperative.

Mrs. Anne Kerr

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will consider giving one extra day to the Prices and Incomes Bill debate? It is exceedingly important. The women of Britain are waiting to hear the prices aspect discussed adequately in the House.

Mr. Peart

I have already answered that question.

Mr. Blaker

Why is the Leader of the House not able to give an answer about the Oldham and the Nelson and Colne by-elections? Is he not aware that the Government's delay in this matter is taken as another indication of their lack of interest in the problems of the area?

Mr. Peart

Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with business.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I would remind the House that we have so far spent 40 minutes on business questions. There is a lot of work ahead.

Mr. Ronald Bell

Did the Leader of the House announce that the business for next Tuesday was both the Second Reading of the Prices and Incomes Bill and a Guillotine on the Finance Bill? If these are both being timed on the same day, does not this show that the Government's programme both downstairs and upstairs is grossly overloaded? Ought he not to consider dropping two or three of the Government's Bills, such as the Transport Bill and the Race Relations Bill, in order to get back on to an even keel?

Mr. Peart

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to go into debating matters here. This has nothing to do with next week's business.

Sir Frank Pearson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you advise us whether questions on the Nelson and Colne by-election are in order during Business questions?

Mr. Speaker

I should have thought that it was in order to ask the Leader of the House about any of the business that is ahead, or possibly ahead, and that this would be a piece of business.

Mr. Hector Hughes

Will the Leader of the House please find the time for my very urgent Motion No. 37? It is very urgent, because it is designed to enable Scotland to use devaluation for the benefit of the nation.

[That this House, recognising that Scotland's present diverse, agricultural, industrial, fishing, tourist and employment developments, geographical and otherwise, do not accord with the advances of science and Scotland's potentialities as is shown by the over-centralisation of parts and depopulation of other parts of Scotland, is of opinion that a commission of Scottish experts should be appointed to investigate and report on the relevant problems and their solution in order to further develop Scotland as a producing and exporting country.]

Mr. Peart

I cannot find any time next week.

Sir Frank Pearson

Adverting to the Nelson and Colne by-election, does the Leader of the House recognise that there are very serious economic difficulties in the area and that it is a scandal that the electors are being deprived of Parliamentary representation on the Floor of this House?

Mr. Peart

I have said that I cannot deal with that point when we are considering next week's business.

Hon. Members

Why not?

Earl of Dalkeith

Can the Leader of the House say how much time will be available for discussion of the guillotine Motion next Tuesday, or is he intending to guillotine that as well?

Mr. Peart

Two hours.

Hon. Members

Oh.

Sir B. Janner

In view of the Report of the Law Commission on the question of people's negligence in allowing animals to stray, will my right hon. Friend now introduce a Bill on the lines that it proposes? If not, is he prepared to support the Private Member's Bill which I am promoting to deal with one section of it, namely, the destruction caused by animals which are allowed to stray on highways?

Mr. Peart

I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern, and I will have a word with him about it, but I cannot find time for a debate next week.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

As the representative of one of over 570 constituencies in the country which are effectively disfranchised so far as the Finance Bill is concerned, may I ask the Leader of the House whether, believing in no taxation without representation, he feels that it is in any way adequate that there should be no more than a two-hour discussion, which I agree the Standing Order permits, on the guillotine Motion, providing almost no chance for many of us to comment? Is he aware that this is the action not of an honourable Minister, but of a drawing-room storm trooper?

Mr. Peart

I do not think that remarks like that do any good. The hon. Gentleman knows the Standing Order, and he knows that the decision was taken by the House to take the Committee stage of the Bill upstairs.

Mr. Iain Macleod

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he need not take the Allocation of Time Motion under the Standing Order, and that he can give a full day? Why does he not do so?

Mr. Peart

Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to talk about this with me?

Mr. Iain Macleod

If the Leader of the House asks me whether I am willing to talk about having a full day for the guillotine Motion, the answer is "Yes, we will have a full day". Will he now accept it?

Mr. Peart

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is now prepared to talk about matters which he has refused consistently to do so far.

Mr. Heath

Will the Leader of the House now say clearly, yes or no, is there to be a full day's debate on the guillotine Motion?

Mr. Peart

No. I have announced the Business. However, in view of what the right hon. Member for Enfield, West has said, I will be prepared to talk to him about it.

Mr. S. C. Silkin

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to Motion No. 282, on Gibraltar, which has the support of right hon. and hon. Members on all sides of the House and which draws attention to the wide support for the British position among Parliamentarians in Europe? Would he allow time for a debate, but preferably not next Tuesday?

[That this House takes note with warm approval of the Motion tabled at the recent meeting of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe at Strasbourg by Parliamentarians of eleven countries and all political parties there represented, deploring all acts calculated to cause inconvenience and hardship to the people of Gibraltar who have overwhelmingly expressed their opposition to a transfer of sovereignty and calling on the Spanish Government to reopen the frontier.]

Mr. Peart

I know of my hon. and learned Friend's interest in this matter, but time cannot be found next week.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke

Would the Leader of the House care to say a word about what has become of the argument of his right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council for sending the Finance Bill upstairs, which was that there would be detailed and prolonged scrutiny between experts?

Mr. Peart

This is not a matter for me. The decision was taken, and I have given the reasons why action has been taken by the Government.

Mr. Birch

Does the Leader of the House realise that deep feelings of people when they are taxed an extra £900 million and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are too idle even to consider their case?

Mr. Peart

I am aware that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite feel strongly about this new arrangement. They have all said so. Their attitude has been consistent. I do not deny that.

Mr. Bessell

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the revised version of the Transport Bill as amended by Standing Committee F will be published, I understand, on Saturday, that all Amendments have to be tabled by Tuesday morning and be on the Order Paper by then for the convenience of the Business Sub-Committee, and that, in those circumstances, it is impossible for back-bench hon. Members to get down all the Amendments that they wish to table? Can he make a different arrangement, either in relation to the meeting of the Business Sub-Committee or the publication of the Bill?

Mr. Peart

I will look into that.

Mr. Brooks

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are perfectly content with the arrangement originally announced referring to the Finance Bill, but that if the Government are now prepared to consider providing extra time for business which they have not anticipated, many of us would prefer to spend an extra day discussing the Prices and Incomes Bill instead of wasting time considering the sterile arguments foisted upon us by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Mr. Peart

I will take note of that point.

Sir F. Bennett

When the right hon. Gentleman confirmed that the Prices and Incomes Bill and the guillotine Motion would both be taken on Tuesday afternoon and evening, was he aware that one of his right hon. Friends was successful this morning in moving that the Race Relations Bill would also be guillotined on Tuesday afternoon and evening? Without using offensive epithets, is that not really a restriction of speech, when so many things are going on at the same time?

Mr. Peart

I cannot accept that there is any attempt to restrict speech.

Sir H. Harrison

Referring to Tuesday's business, when the right hon. Gentleman said that he was prepared to think again about the time for discussion of the guillotine Motion he rather glorified in the fact that the last time that the Guillotine operated on the Finance Bill was under a Labour Government in 1931. Does he remember what happened to that Government two months later?

Mr. Peart

That is another matter, but I remember that the Conservative Party later supported Ramsay Macdonald.

Sir Knox Cunningham

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall how long the debate on the guillotine Motion lasted on that previous occasion? Can he say whether we will have a full day this time? If he cannot do that, will he consult the Deputy Leader of the House and get his consent for a full day to discuss the Motion?

Mr. Peart

I have already answered that point. I would only be repeating myself if I did so again.

Mr. Alison

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that neither the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, nor the Chief Secretary nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made any public complaint in the Committee considering the Finance Bill that the Bill is not making satisfactory progress? Is the Guillotine to be applied for lack of progress, or for lack of consultation about progress? If it is for the latter reason, is that an adequate ground?

Mr. Peart

There will be adequate time for hon. Members to debate the issue.

Hon. Members

Two hours?

Mr. Ramsden

If the right hon. Gentleman is determined to press on with this lamentable proposal to guillotine the Finance Bill, will he at least make certain, when drawing up the timetable, that adequate time is provided to discuss Selective Employment Tax and its application to hotels, which is of the greatest concern to my constituents?

Mr. Peart

That is another matter in relation to the Guillotine. I know that the right hon. Gentleman feels strongly about it, and I will note what he has said.

Sir T. Beamish

Can the Leader of the House tell us what is the position concerning the statement about the pay and allowances of the Armed Forces, which is long overdue, six weeks overdue, I think?

Mr. Peart

I am aware of the hon. and gallant Member's interest in this. I did give the reply that the Prices and Incomes Board is still discussing the matter. As soon as the Report is out, the Government will have to make an announcement.

Mr. Heath

Is the Leader of the House aware that at a time when Parliamentary institutions and the House of Commons in particular, are under vicious attack outside from every quarter, the Government's handling of business, in which they are steamrollering through Bills affecting millions of people—the Transport Bill, of which 50 Clauses were not discussed, the Finance Bill, now to be guillotined, so that the same thing will happen, the Prices and Incomes Bill, imposing almost complete control on the country's economy—rightly or wrongly—only one day for Second Reading—that this handling of business by the Government is rapidly becoming intolerable? The Government have not one shred of support left in the country from the electorate, from trade unions or from industry. To pursue this policy, as they are doing now, is an abuse of power and is becoming a Parliamentary despotism against which the people will revolt.

Hon. Members

Out, out, out.

Mr. Speaker

Order, order. This noise does nobody any good.

Mr. Roebuck

On a point of order. As a comparative newcomer to the House, I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as one who wants to keep to the rules so that Parliamentary democracy can be seen to function. Can you tell me whether the extremely long question, if it was a question, which the Leader of the Opposition has just addressed to my right hon. Friend, is one that comes under the heading of business questions?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that the Chair does try to keep the House in order. It is one of the Chair's responsibilities to see that what takes place at business question time is in order.

Mr. Roebuck

If I may say so, with great respect, I have observed that whenever I have fallen foul by stepping over the mark I have been quickly rebuked.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman must be careful. If he wants to suggest that he is treated unfairly by the Chair as compared with any other hon. Member, that would be a grave reflection on the Chair. He has a Parliamentary opportunity of stating such an opinion by Motion on the Order Paper.