TRANSPORT BILL (AVAILABILITY) (Hansard, 22 May 1968)

§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart)
In accordance with the undertaking which I gave to the House yesterday, I have made detailed inquiries into the point raised by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) about whether the Government made copies of the Transport Bill, as amended, available to some of their back benchers before the Bill was issued by the Public Bill Office on 18th May.
I am satisfied from my inquiries that this allegation is totally without foundation.
The Government, as usual, received a few proof copies of the Bill. The Minister sent one proof copy of the reprinted Bill, by hand, to the hon. Member for Worcester, and another to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) on Thursday, 16th May. These copies were sent to them as chief transport spokesmen for their parties in the House. No copy was given, or shown by the Ministry, to any other Member.

§ Mr. Peter Walker
Is the Leader of the House aware that the copy which was sent to me, and presumably to the spokesman for the Liberal Party, was marked "Strictly confidential", and that I was told that it could not be used, that it was not accurate, and that it must not be shown to any other person? That strict confidence was kept.
Therefore, will the Leader of the House tell us what explanation he received from those Labour back benchers who tabled Amendments on Friday, who obviously must have been in possession of a copy of the Bill, because, without being in possession of a copy of the Bill, it would have been impossible for them to make the references concerned?

§ Mr. Peart
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked me this question. 533 Amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. James Bennett) and Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) certainly were discussed between my hon. Friend the Minister of State and them. In order to get the Amendments down quickly, with the right page and line references, my hon. Friends asked the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am being frank with the House. —my hon. Friends asked the Minister of State whether he would arrange for the Amendments to be tabled in their names. This was arranged—this is not unusual— through Parliamentary counsel. My hon. Friends were not shown copies of the Bill or told what was in the Bill.

§ Mr. Peter Walker
That is a most unsatisfactory reply. In the circumstances, the Leader of the House knows full well that there was considerable importance in being able to table Amendments early, as the Business Committee was meeting on Tuesday to discuss the timetable for the Bill. In view of this, Conservative back benchers who asked if they could table Amendments were told that they were unable to see any copy of the Bill to make the appropriate references. Therefore, in practice, this side of the House was unable to table Amendments on Friday, whereas the Government side was able to do so, in consultation with the Minister.

§ Mr. Peart
I cannot accept that. The hon. Gentleman made a specific charge yesterday. He said—and I quote from HANSARD—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not use words like that. I have made an impartial inquiry. The hon. Gentleman said yesterday: … it means that Ministers must have placed in the hands of their back benchers copies of a Bill that was not available to Members on this side of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 299.] I have looked into this matter. No copies of the Bill were ever given to the hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that charge.

§ Mr. Peter Walker
On the assurance of the Leader of the House, I will certainly withdraw the charge that copies of the Bill were placed in the hands of back bench Members opposite. In its place, I say that the back benchers were given the facility of the Minister looking up the Bill for them and telling them how to frame their Amendments.

§ Mr. Peart
The hon. Gentleman, who had received a copy of the Bill from my hon. Friend, who, incidentally, had discussed matters with him in the Business Committee only a few hours previously, did not have the courtesy even to tell my right hon. Friend that he was raising this matter on the Floor of the House. I, as an older and more experienced Member, tell the hon. Gentleman that, if he goes on like this, he will bring disrepute not only on himself but on the normal conventions applying to relations between Ministers and those who lead for the Opposition.

§ Mr. Heath
What the Leader of the House has said is that no copy of the Bill was given to back benchers, but what the Government have done is to table Amendments for back benchers before the Bill was published. This is absolutely unsatisfactory to the rest of the House. The Leader of the House says that it is the customary practice. In my experience, it is certainly not the customary practice for the Government of the day to table Amendments in the names of back bench Members before the Bill has been published.
I ask the Leader of the House to abandon the various other red herrings which he has been drawing across the path and stick to this point, which is entirely unsatisfactory to the House.

§ Mr. Peart
I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should talk about red herrings. I was asked—indeed, I was pressed—by the hon. Member for Worcester to investigate whether my right hon. Friend had placed a copy of the Bill in the hands of, or made available the contents of the Bill to, our back benchers. That was the charge. My right hon. Friend did not do this. The only two Members who had the Bill were the hon. Members for Worcester and for Bodmin.

§ Mr. Heath
What the House is complaining about is that Government back benchers were given an advantage by the Government tabling Amendments for them—because this is what must have happened; indeed, the Leader of the House has said so—before anybody else had a copy of the Bill which they could use for this purpose. Will the Leader of 535 the House please say what justification there is for that practice?

§ Mr. Peart
The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made a charge. I have answered it. There is now another charge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have answered the first charge. I believe that this is a normal courtesy whereby Members who have put a point of view in Committee seek advice and make representations. This applied to me when I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when I was approached by Conservative back benchers. I have investigated this charge. It is unfounded. I ask hon. Members to be honourable and withdraw it.

§ Mr. Bessell
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I confirm his statement about the copy of the Bill that I received, that I treated it with confidence, and that I very much appreciate the courtesy of the Minister of Transport in sending it to me? Further, is it not a fact that the selection of Amendments for discussion will not be in any way affected by what has happened? As that is the real issue, it would be better to drop this matter.

§ Mr. Peart
I give the hon. Gentleman that complete assurance—[Interruption.] I have been asked, and I have said that it would be unaffected.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I hope that we can move on.

§ Mr. G. Campbell
Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that this practice will never occur again? It is entirely unacceptable that private Members' names should appear on Amendments printed at the same time as the Bill is published. Can the right hon. Gentleman name any occasion when Conservative private Members' names appeared at the same time as a Bill being published when he was at the Ministry of Agriculture?

§ Mr. Peart
I cannot accept that. It would be a tragedy if the practice of having talks between our opposite numbers and an exchange of confidential information on the Bill in question is spoilt. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not 536 the point."] It is the point. I see nothing wrong with what my right hon. Friend has done in any way. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Worcester has made this charge without even having the courtesy to inform my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Peter Walker
As the right hon. Gentleman keeps on repeating this, I should point out that I considered that the query was a technical one with the Public Bill Office. Therefore, I gave notice to Mr. Speaker, who, I thought, was the right person to give notice of this. Through the Minister's saying that my copy of the Bill had to be treated in strict confidence, I was unable to give any references in the Bill to my back benchers, while he was doing so to his.

§ Mr. Peart
The hon. Member for Worcester made this charge: … it means that Ministers must have placed in the hands of their back benchers copies of a Bill that was not available to Members on this side of the House. The hon. Gentleman had a copy of the Bill. He knows that this was not so.

§ Mr. Heath
My hon. Friend has already told the Leader of the House that if—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Mr. Heath.

§ Mr. Heath
My hon. Friend has already said—

§ Mr. Lawson
On a point of order. Must we go on suffering all the filth from the other side?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is a point of emotion, not a point of order.

§ Mr. Lawson
Are innuendoes regularly to be thrown about by that crowd on the opposite side of the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to his opinion, but it is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Heath
My hon. Friend has already told the Leader of the House that he fully accepts his assurance that the copies of the Bill were not given to Labour back benchers. He said this quite clearly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] That is a withdrawal. My hon. Friend has accepted the assurance of the Leader of the House. What I am saying to the right hon. Gentleman is 537 that hon. Members behind him were given the opportunity of putting down their Amendments, or their Amendments were put down by the Government. That is what happened. The Leader of the House would do better to acknowledge that fact straightly and honestly to the House and stop treating us in this shabby fashion.

§ Mr. Peart
I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's strictures. I know that his hon. Friend has now withdrawn, but I am sorry to say that I thought that his withdrawal was done rather ungraciously.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I hope that we can move on.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor
Should not all members of the Standing Committee have been treated on a fair and equal basis? Was not an advantage given to Members who happen to be on the opposite side of the House? Has not the Minister a cheek to adopt his present attitude when he shamefully bulldozed the Bill through with a Guillotine?

§ Mr. Peart
If there was any advantage, it was to the spokesman for the Opposition with a Bill in his pocket.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that in the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends we are talking about Amendments put down by members of the Standing Committee? They sat on the Committee and they know the Bill as it is amended, and, therefore, it is quite proper—[HON. MEMBERS: "HOW?"]— because we sat on the Committee. Will my right hon. Friend accept that we sat on that Bill, we were the Members responsible for amending it, and that it is quite competent for Members on this 538 side of the House or the opposite side to submit Amendments to the Bill? There is nothing unusual in that.

§ Mr. G. Campbell
On a point of order —[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall hear the hon. Gentleman on a point of order, but I suggest that we might get away from this now.

§ Mr. Campbell
As a number of new Clauses were to be fitted into the Bill in different places the Clause numbers were to be changed, so it was impossible for hon. Members to be sure of references to the Clauses.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is not a point of order; it is a point of fact. I hope that we can move on now.
I undertook yesterday to take up a broad point raised by the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), who wondered whether it was right that Amendments for the Report stage of the Bill could be accepted before the amended Bill was published.
The answer is that Members have the right to table Amendments to a Bill as soon as it is reported. It has always been the practice of the Public Bill Office to accept Amendments before the Bill was published. In consequence, it has sometimes in the past been necessary to accept amendments with incorrect page and line references—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am not on the previous issue at all.
It has consequently sometimes been necessary to accept Amendments with incorrect page and line references, which were corrected as soon as the amended Bill was available.