HOUSE OF COMMONS REDISTRI BUTION OF SEATS (No. 2) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

HC Deb 09 July 1969 vol 786 cc1363-406

3.38 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart)

I beg to move, That pursuant to Standing Order No. 43A (Allocation of time to Bills) the Committee on the Bill shall report the Bill on or before Monday, 14th July and as respects proceedings in that Committee the Business Committee shall make recommendations to the House. This is a Motion under Standing Order No. 43A to bring the Committee stage of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill to an end on or before 14th July and to invite the Business Committee to propose an allocation of time accordingly.

I do not propose to try to emulate the degree of heat engendered by right hon. and hon. Members opposite last night. As Leader of the House, I think that some of the occurrences of last night did credit neither to the Members concerned, nor to Parliament itself. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Let us start as we mean to go on, and cut out the noise which we had last night.

Mr. Peart

I think that, on reflection, those concerned will take a similar view: at least, I hope so.

One intervention which I particularly deplored was that of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), in referring to my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary as he did.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Quite right."] I do not think it is playing right to attack people who are not in a position to reply, and I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will regret that.

Although the Leader of the Opposition expressed indignation, he knows very well, from his own experience as a Chief Whip, that there come occasions in the life of any Government—as happened more under a Tory Government than under a Labour Government—when it is necessary for a Government to programme their business. Indeed, I have a fairly lengthy list of the occasions when, as Chief Whip, he found it necessary to enforce the Closure of our debates. I have numerous precedents, which are on the record.

I have no doubt that these were generally justified. But I notice, with wry detachment, that he felt impelled to do so in the past on such matters as the Christmas Adjournment debate in 1956, and the no doubt critical measure of the debate on the India (Family Pensions Fund) Amendment Order in 1957. I do not, however, wish to dwell unduly on the events of last night, or to do any more to exacerbate the narrow party issues involved in this matter.

Turning to the Bill itself, its very nature inevitably means that it is a matter of great controversy in the House, but, not only is it a short Bill of four Clauses, but it is not by any means a complex Bill. Its proposals are clear and straightforward. Already, the general principles embodied in it have been endorsed by the House by substantial majorities. I do not think that the protracted discussion in this House is likely to elucidate any further the issues involved, or to reconcile the two basically conflicting views taken by the Government and the Opposition on this question.

The time allotted for the Committee stage of the Bill by the Government is, I think, reasonable and adequate, and no exception was taken to it when I announced it in the Business statement last Thursday.

Essentially, the Government's central proposition—already, as I say, endorsed by Parliament—is that it is reasonable, and indeed, essential, that Parliament should consider the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners in the light of the fundamental changes in the structure of local Government embodied in the recommendations of the Redcliffe-Maud Report.

Parliament is under no obligation, and, indeed, would, in the Government's view, be wholly unwise, to ignore the repercussions of the Redcliffe-Maud Report, and to press ahead with the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners as if such a far-reaching report had never been made. It would, in the Government's view, be wasteful and disruptive, in view of these impending radical changes, for us to go blithely ahead, towards the probability of two major upheavals in the political map of the country in the short span of about 10 years. I think that this is clearly right.

There are differences, of course. Widely varying estimates have been made of the effect on existing constituencies of this decision, and still more widely varying estimates of the effect on the electoral prospects of the parties in the House—[An HON. MEMBER: "It will affect the Government more."] I am prepared to have a bet on that, but that is another matter. I will see the hon. Gentleman afterwards. But I think that, when the transient storms have passed, it will be accepted generally by the country that the Government's decision on this matter has, in fact, been determined not by any short-term party considerations, but with the genuine long-term interests of central and local government in the country in mind.

It is one of the purposes of the procedure under which this Motion is moved that the House should not be detained unduly on Motions of this kind, and that the debate should be confined to two hours only. I do not, therefore, propose to go further into the merits or demerits of the Bill, and I will leave my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, who will be winding up this short debate, to deal with any detailed points on the Bill which are raised.

I propose, however, to refer briefly to the procedure under Standing Order 43A and to try to rebut the general criticism that in moving the Motion the Government are somehow acting in an un-parliamentary or unconstitutional way.

The procedure under which we are acting was adopted by the House, following a Motion moved by my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary, on 6th December, 1967. Those who study the protracted discussion of the House on this matter will have no doubt that this Standing Order was given the most detailed consideration before the House decided that this accelerated time-table procedure should be embodied in our Standing Orders. So much for the criticism that this particular Motion comes, so to speak, "out of the blue."

In the Government's view, the conduct of the Opposition yesterday was not such as to give them any confidence that the Committee stage of the Bill would be completed with reasonable expedition. The Leader of the Opposition claimed last night that no complaint could be made about the progress of the Bill—Amendments had been obtained at an average rate of four hours each. What he failed to mention was that that average would certainly not have been got without the Closure having been moved—the very Closures which his hon. Friends complained about.

It was open to the representatives of the Opposition when, in accordance with the requirements of Standing Order No. 43A, they were consulted about a voluntary time-table, to say that they would certainly dispose of the Bill within say another 40 hours. But did they? Not at all. It was, therefore, necessary to invoke the procedure of the Standing Order and, following the failure to agree with the Opposition. Mr. Speaker was informed last night that a Motion under Standing Order 43A would need to be moved. The present Motion was tabled last night accordingly.

It is, therefore, quite clear that what has been done in this instance is in full accordance with the procedures laid down in Standing Orders of the House. There is nothing underhand or unparliamentary in our dealing with the present position in this way: it is precisely this sort of situation which the Standing Order is designed to meet. It is true…that all Members of the House regret very much a Guillotine Motion; and it is in the nature of things—and again quite rightly—that the Opposition, in particular, should resent it and should oppose it bitterly to the end."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1952; Vol. 499, c. 472–3.] Before any hon. Member interrupts me after saying that, I should like to point out that that is what the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. kin Macleod) said, in circumstances similar to today's, on 23rd April, 1952, in a debate on a timetable Motion on the National Health Service Bill.

But, I go further. There are many precedents of right hon. and hon. Members moving a guillotine Motion. Conservative Governments have moved more guillotine Motions in one Session than have been moved in all the time of this Administration. In 1962—right hon. Gentlemen opposite who supported that Administration must accept this—they moved five guillotine Motions. We have moved only two so far, and this is the third one today, in the life of two Parliaments. I could go further to show that, over and over again, when a Conservative Administration have thought fit to programme their business in the way that we are doing now, they have done it, and they know it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Gerrymandering."] There is no question of gerrymandering. I could give all the facts.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

rose—

Mr. Peart

In 1963, after guillotining five Bills, they did it over the London Government Bill. Of course, according to them, that was normal constitutional practice.

Mr. Duncan Sandys (Streatham)

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the Leader of the House does not give way, the right hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Mr. Peart

Much as I should like to give way to a contender for the position of Leader of the Opposition, I cannot do so.

In our view, the Opposition's attitude yesterday made it inevitable that the Government should adopt this procedure, and I am confident that the House will endorse our view.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Quintin Hogg.

Mr. David Ensor (Bury and Radcliffe)

On a point of order. I should like to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which, I hope, involves the honour of the House. I wish to refer to the monstrous and outrageous behaviour last night of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw).

Mr. Speaker

Order. I cannot deal with a point of order on what happened last night. The opportunity to deal with what happened last night was last night. I dealt with the matter at the time.

Mr. James Wellbeloved (Erith and Crayford)

On a point of order. We seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the events which occurred yesterday evening in order to try to understand what the procedure would be today if there should be a further outbreak of the sort of disgraceful conduct which occurred when the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon) and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) started to throw Order Papers around the Chamber.

We are about to enter into a debate on a matter of considerable importance, namely, the timetable Motion. It was apparent from previous occurrences yesterday that the inflammatory speeches of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg)—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot, under the guise of a point of order, have a réchauffé of all that happened last night. The hon. Gentleman asks Mr. Speaker how he would rule if certain eventualities happened. Mr. Speaker never rules on hypothetics. This is a brief debate; it is a serious debate. It must continue.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not waste time by persisting in raising point of order after point of order.

Mr. Albert Murray (Gravesend)

On a point of order. Yesterday, we had points of order interrupted by debate. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in ascertaining which way this debate is likely to go today? Last evening, when the Leader—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot debate, as a point of order, what happened last evening. On the narrow point which the hon. Gentleman makes about whether we shall have a debate interspersed with points of order, may I say that he is doing his best to make it that.

Mr. Murray

I had not reached my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I proposed to ask you how far this debate will range, because the Leader of the Opposition ranged over Rhodesia and Ulster—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot debate last night's debate again today on points of order. I shall hear no points of order about last night's debate.

Mr. Wellbeloved

On a point of order. I had not completed my point of order. It does not relate to last night's events. I am trying to elucidate from you, Mr. Speaker, whether what happened yesterday could be avoided today—

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the hon. Gentleman reads my earlier Ruling to him, he will see that I have dealt with that point. Mr. Hogg.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone)

rose—

Mr. Wellbeloved

My point of order is this. Mr. Speaker. To protect the good name of Parliament—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—to protect hon. Members on this side of the House from missiles thrown across the Chamber, may I ask whether it is within your power, Mr. Speaker, to order that all paper should be removed from the Chamber to prevent the disgraceful conduct to which the House was subjected by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham?

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the House were in danger, Mr. Speaker would take care to protect it. I do not see any danger now. Let us get on with the debate. Mr. Hogg.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I remind the House from time to time—[Interruption.] I remind the House from time to time that only the House can hurt itself and that the good name of Parliament—[Interruption.] Order—the good name of Parliament is in the hands of every individual Member. Mr. Roebuck.

Mr. Hogg

On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I will take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point of order next.

Mr. Roy Roebuck (Harrow, East)

To facilitate progress, may I respectfully suggest that if the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon) and the hon. Member who is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition would be good enough to apologise for their disgraceful conduct yesterday, it would assist my hon. Friends and myself to give a quiet and courteous hearing to the hight hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg).

Hon. Members

Oh!

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member ought not to need any assistance in giving a courteous hearing to hon. Members with whose opinions he disagrees.

Mr. Hogg

May I respectfully—[HON. MEMBERS: "Point of order!"] This is a point of order. May I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it would not be better to debate this Motion on its merits rather than have needless points of order and needless personalities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Not a single Member of the House would dissent from the sentiments expressed by the right hon. and learned Member. It is their application from time to time that troubles everybody.

Mr. Eric Moonman (Billericay)

On a point of order. Will you let us know, Mr. Speaker, whether you have received an apology from the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)? He may think little of hon. Members on this side of the House, but he should apologise to you.

Mr. Speaker

I have ruled that I shall take no more points of order on what happened last night.

Mr. W. Howie (Luton)

On a point of order. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not wish to speak of the events last night. They were sufficiently disgraceful. I would, however, like to raise a point of order concerning today's debate, and receive your guidance.

I am in some difficulty in hoping, like many other hon. Members, to take part in the debate, should time permit. I notice that this is a timetable Motion, and I should like some guidance as to the nature of the debate which is to follow the debate on this Motion. In what order will Amendments to the Bill be taken, and at what time?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order. That is a point that the hon Gentleman must take up with the Leader of the House at some time.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Hogg

The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has, from time to time, acknowledged—I doubt not with complete sincerity—that he owes a duty to the House which transcends his duty to either side of it. I beg him to ponder what I have to say carefully—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and courteously. I can assure him that I shall give neither him nor anyone else, so far as I can avoid it, any legitimate cause for personal offence.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter (The Hartlepools)

On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I saw the hon. Member rise. I heard his voice. I hope that we shall get on with this very serious debate without spending too much time on points of order. Mr. Leadbitter.

Mr. Leadbitter

On a point of order. If we are able to take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments seriously the House will be—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We must not have points of argument disguised as points of order. That is not a point of order at all. Mr. Hogg. [Interruption.] I have ruled that that was not a point of order.

Mr. Leadbitter

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member cannot persist in raising points of order. I have ruled that the first was not a point of order.

Mr. Leadbitter

My point of order is this: the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) stated that he did not wish to embark upon personalities. Will he now—

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is not a point of order. I will not hear any more points of order from the hon. Member at this moment.

Mr. Hogg

rose—

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Hogg

Mr. Speaker, I propose to use no kind of provocation at all, and I propose to respond in no way at all to provocation offered to me. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Apart from the disorder that has taken place, nothing has happened in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech of five or six words that can call for another point of order.

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson (Bristol, North-East)

On a point of order. I cannot hear the right hon. and learned Member, and I want to know whether he is putting an apology before the House.

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot be heard it is the fault of hon. Members on the Government side. [Interruption.] Order. This is not the first time in the last fortnight that one side or the other—I blame both equally—has prevented spokesmen from the other side being heard.

Mr. Wellbeloved

On a point of order. Will you give me your guidance, Mr. Speaker? On previous occasions this side of the House has been subjected to all sorts of abuse and annoyance, and not once have those strictures been applied to the Opposition which are now being applied to hon. Members on this side. We greatly respect your endeavours to protect all Members of the House, but we ask that we get equality of treatment.

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. Member will read, tomorrow, the Ruling that I have just given he will see that I attacked both sides for the same kind of disorder.

Mr. Hogg

I was about to say this to the right hon. Gentleman, in the name of the duty to which I have referred: obviously guillotine Motions are moved from time to time by both sides, whichever party is in power. The question in each case is not whether such Motions are necessary—we know that such Motions sometimes are—but whether the particular Motion is justified. It is to that question that I wish to address myself and to address, through you, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman.

In considering the validity or otherwise of a Motion of this kind—as I hope the House will agree—we have to look to a variety of different factors. One of these is the nature of the legislation proposed and the necessity for it. The right hon. Gentleman—if I may command his attention for a moment—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has already referred to that factor, and I propose to deal with it shortly.

Another of the factors to be taken into consideration is the length of the discussion which would be required by that legislation unimpeded by any artificial barrier.

The third, I take it, would be the urgency of the legislation, to have it by a particular date; and, perhaps, fourth, the extent to which, if at all, the Government have legitimate cause to apprehend organised obstruction.

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Hogg

First of all, on the nature of the legislation, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the Bill, as he says, is a Bill of four Clauses. Owing to the selection by the Chair in Committee there would be, I think, nine debates. Two of these have already been concluded; both closured, in the case of the former, at least, some of us, including myself, ventured to think, prematurely.

Mr. Stanley Henig (Lancaster)

Surprise, surprise.

Mr. Hogg

The House concluded its proceedings shortly after midnight last night, and two hours of its time today are being taken up by the Motion we are now discussing. I would have thought that, by now, had we continued to sit without the guillotine Motion, and with the addition of the two hours we are taking up now, we would have got a considerable distance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."]—a considerable distance through the Committee stage, with or without the assistance of the Closure proposed, no doubt, at legitimate intervals by the Patronage Secretary. [An HON. MEMBER: "That was not what was said last night."] The question is how far the Guillotine is justified in these circumstances.

The right hon. Gentleman has complained of the behaviour on this side of the House. He has been long enough in the House, and on both sides of it, as, indeed, have I, to know that there never is an occasion upon which, whether rightly or wrongly, the Opposition regard themselves as being stifled unfairly, that this sort of thing does not happen. I do not wish to prolong the discussion of that aspect of the matter beyond saying that we feel a sense of grievance which I appeal to him, as Leader of the whole House, to ponder seriously from the point of view of the duty to which I referred to begin with.

Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

Oh, no.

Mr. Hogg

The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that the Bill is a controversial matter; and he referred in general to its nature. I will do the same.

It is a Bill the purpose of which is to suspend for a more or less indefinite period, but with a maximum of 15 years, the constitutional arrangements for the delineation of electoral boundaries recently, or comparatively recently, introduced, and comparatively recently amended, by agreement between the parties, and universally, I think, acclaimed at the time as a valuable addition to our constitutional arrangements, which put them above party, and the reason for it, be it good or bad, is alleged to be the inconvenience caused to the electorate by a second redistribution after the conclusion of local government reorganisation.

Now, that is something which does require discussion, but the right hon. Gentleman must accept, and hon. Members opposite must realise, that we on this side of the House do not believe—that the case had been made out, that there would be serious inconvenience at the end of 10 years, that is, if Parliaments, as they have done, averaged three years' apiece, after two, three, or four General Elections—that it would justify a suspension of constitutional arrangements of that kind.

It is, therefore, with a sense of very real indignation, even if hon. Members opposite do not think it justified, that we oppose the provisions of the Bill. We have not failed to note, and the right hon. Gentleman will not have failed to note, either, that these views, which are not held merely in the party to which I belong, but outside it, and in a very wide section of the serious Press, are associated will the belief, be it right or wrong, and be it intentional or unintentional, that the effect of the Bill would be to give a bonus of between eight and 20 seats to the Government party in the absence of any swing—one of which is said to be the Prime Minister's. One would think, in the light of these questions, that the right hon. Gentleman, as trustee for the interests of both sides of the House, would almost fall over backwards to establish his own integrity in the matter.

This brings me to the second of the points which I have enumerated, the question of urgency. Again, the right hon. Gentleman must accept this from me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—that we at least sincerely believe that the case for urgency has not only not been made, has not been attempted, and was certainly not attempted in his short speech this afternoon, and that any degree of urgency which there may be is the direct result of the Government's having deliberately left their action to the last possible moment. It has not so far been disputed that this legislation could have been brought forward at least as soon as the terms of reference of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission were made known, but certainly not later than when the report was in the hands of the Government. But, in truth and in fact, the Government not merely delayed action, but concealed their intentions—[HON. MEM-bers: "Oh."]—even so recently—and the Home Secretary knows that the point I am about to put is true—even so recently as the Motion which I moved two or three weeks ago.

Before I made my speech I pointed out to the Home Secretary that he was under no obligation whatever to disclose the Government's intentions to me, but that I would very much appreciate it if he did, but he quite deliberately did not. All I am saying is that if the Government are going to delay disclosure of their intentions to that degree till the last possible moment, they cannot legitimately be heard to complain of urgency.

Now I come to the third point, the Committee stage of the Bill. We deliberately framed Amendments which accepted the main principle of the Bill, and the Home Secretary, in his short speech yesterday afternoon, was good enough to accept that that was so in the case of the first two Amendments which we were then discussing. He knew—or, at any rate, he knows now—that I attached very great importance to those Amendments. I proposed them in a short speech, which can be read in HANSARD, that lasted 15 minutes. I proposed them in a speech which the Home Secretary himself was good enough to agree was highly conciliatory in tone and content, and we received what we thought—and the right hon. Gentleman must accept that we did think—what we thought was a very perfunctory reply.

Then the second Amendment came—and I want to say this, without any desire to give personal offence to the right hon. Gentleman, but simply to ex- plain the point of view which we held. When the second Amendment was called, after the opening speech, which again lasted for 15 minutes and no more, and had been going on for two minutes, the Home Secretary left the Chamber without the usual explanation or apology—

Mr. Wellbeloved

On a point of Order. In view of your earlier Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that it was not in order to refer to incidents that occurred last night, is the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) in order in referring to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary walking out of the Chamber?

Mr. Speaker

I ruled that I can give no ruling as to order on what happened last night. The House can, however, refer to what happens at any time.

Mr. Wellbeloved

On a point of order. It is within my recollection, Mr. Speaker, that you resisted my earlier point of order on the basis that it referred to the events of yesterday evening, and that it was only when I rose again to say that my point of order was not on the events of last night but on today's events that you heard me. It is within my recollection, subject to your reaffirming your Ruling, that we were not in order in referring to yesterday's events. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing precisely what you denied me the opportunity of doing.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I denied the hon. Gentleman the opportunity of raising what happened last night as a point of order. If he gets into the debate, he, like any other hon. Member, can refer to what happened last night.

Mr. Hogg

I refer to this as delicately as I can, Mr. Speaker, not because I wish to complain that the Under-Secretary of State, who is a widely respected figure in the House, was asked to reply, but because it is common knowledge—and this is common to Governments of both complexions—that when an Under-Secretary, in the absence of his right hon. Friend, is left to reply he has no authority to go beyond in concession what has been told him before the beginning of the debate.

This has a definite bearing upon what the right hon. Gentleman told the House about the prospects of a voluntary timetable. It is perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman asked my right hon. Friend and me whether we would consent to a voluntary timetable. My answer was, "That must depend upon the extent to which we shall receive concessions during the course of discussion." The right hon. Gentleman then said to me, "What concession do you want?", and I said, "Will you give me any?".

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan)

Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman commits himself too far, it is in order to refer to the fact that there was such a meeting last night, but is it in order—and I put this for the right hon. and learned Gentleman"s consideration, too—to refer to what must be partial accounts of what took place at that meeting? This means that there will be two versions; we shall have to keep minutes and have shorthand writers. I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we should be a little careful. I say this in the hope that it will help before we get into that kind of discussion.

Mr. Hogg

I would, Mr. Speaker, have accepted that entirely, but for the fact that the Leader of the House referred to that conversation partially and, evidently, his reference made some impact upon his hearers, since it was loudly cheered.

Without reference to the conversation I will say what is my attitude. It would have varied a great deal according to what concessions were likely to be offered in Committee; but it has been made plain to us that no concessions whatever would be offered, and that the Government are intent on getting the Bill without Amendment and, therefore, without a Report stage. So long as that attitude persists, there can be no chance of a voluntary timetable. What is the good of—

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

rose—

Mr. Howie

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not give way, the two hon. Gentlemen must resume their seats.

Mr. Hogg

I would certainly have given way but for the way in which I have hitherto been denied a hearing—

Mr. Molloy

rose—

Mr. Howie

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentlemen must not persist if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not give way.

Mr. Hogg

There can be no use in asking the Opposition for a voluntary timetable when we are given to understand that no Amendments of any kind will be accepted, whatever may be our reasons. If we know that nothing we say will have any effect, a voluntary timetable is utterly useless and would be a betrayal of the case which we are now seeking to present.

We are being asked by both right hon. Gentlemen to pass the Bill under the Guillotine in the name of the sovereignty of Parliament. Again, I emphasise that I do not wish to give the right hon. Gentleman personal offence, but I ask him what kind of Parliament it will be whose sovereignty we are asked to uphold? Is it to be a Parliament which believes in government by discussion, or is it to be the dictatorship of a temporary majority? If it is the latter, the sooner we end the sovereignty of Parliament, and substitute the rule of government by reason and discussion, the better.

The very name "Parliament" presupposes discussion, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman, with all the sincerity that I can command, to think again, in the name of his loyalty to the whole House and not to party, before we proceed with this procedural Motion. I have appealed to him in that name up to this point, but I wish to make a second and more personal appeal to him to consider carefully what will be the long-term effect of the course which he is now proposing upon the reputation of the Labour Party.

What would one think of a man who was caught with an ace up his sleeve and who, when challenged about it, did not, like Mr. Gladstone, refer to supernatural agencies, but claimed that it was a matter of administrative convenience, and, when this was challenged, drew a gun to prevent an argument? I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in the name of Parliament and Parliamentary government, to resile from his present position in an age when liberty, freedom and law are in retreat throughout the world, and in an age when men look to this House of Commons for patterns in these things. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, with all the sincerity that I can command, to respond to my appeal, and to return to constitutional powers before it is too late.

Mr. Peart

I want to say to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who has waxed so strongly on the Bill and whose approach I reject, that I would better judge his sincerity if he were prepared to withdraw his insulting remark last night to my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip.

Mr. Hogg

If I had been approached in any circumstances other than the way in which I have been treated this afternoon—

Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)

rose—

Mr. Hogg

I am sorry, but I am in the middle of a sentence. If I had been approached—

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

Why should the right hon. and learned Gentleman be approached?

Mr. Hogg

If I had been approached in any other way than I have been approached by the other side this afternoon, I would have said that, if I had caused the smallest personal offence to any Member of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I would be deeply sorry. As it is, I can only repeat my remark.

Hon. Member

Shame.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell (Easington)

Seldom during the course of a prolonged experience of this Assembly have I listened to such a sanctimonious, arrogant and deceptive speech as the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has just delivered to the House. He is inclined to indulge in epithets. Yesterday, he indulged in an epithet of a most offensive kind against my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. We also can indulge in epithets. I have known the right hon. and learned Gentleman over the years, and the only epithet or description I can indulge in is that he is the immaculate deception.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was not directed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, or to the Home Secretary, or to these benches. It was directed, for the foreseeable future, to those in another place. That is the game the right hon. and learned Gentleman is playing.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave his case away absolutely and emphatically at the end of his speech, although it might well have been fortuitous. He said that if only my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had been ready to make concessions, everything in the garden would have been lovely. But, alternatively, if my right hon. Friend is unwilling or unable to make concessions, the Opposition will provide the alternative. What is that alternative? It is outrageous behaviour.

This might have been expected—I say this with great respect, meaning no offence—from my hon. Friends on this side of the House, considering how they have been brought up. But this is not the kind of behaviour we expect from products of the high scholastic institutions, from Harrow and Eton, and is certainly not the reason why their parents should have been involved in considerable expenditure. I have often doubted—but do not expect a large measure of agreement here—the value of education. After all, I myself have managed without it—

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

So have most of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues.

Mr. Shinwell

I understand that although it is not an unparliamentary expression to describe other hon. Members, or even right hon. Members, as hypocrites, which is quite Parliamentary, one must not describe them as humbugs, so I forbear. But never have I listened to such humbuggery as I have today.

I may be accused of indulging in escapades and adventures during a long experience and I have witnessed scenes in this House far more serious than occurred yesterday—[An HON. MEMBER: "Such as?"] I have witnessed scenes when hon. Members were expelled from the House, even carried from the House.

Mr. Wellbeloved

Hon. Members opposite always manage to stagger out.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The House wishes to hear the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Shinwell

I am grateful for all contributions received.

But when those incidents occurred, they at any rate were in a just cause, were fortified by logic and were upholding the dignity of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] But what dignity did we experience yesterday?

I am well aware of the traditions in the House and of the procedure in debates in which one must not refer unduly to events in the recent past. But I was here yesterday when the Chairman of Committees was in the Chair and witnessed the behaviour of some hon. Members opposite. I do not refer to all of them. There are some decent Members on the other side. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] The behaviour of some hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and, indeed, some right hon. Gentlemen, when the Chairman of Committees was trying to uphold the dignity of the House, was almost beyond description.

There was a time when I thought that the right hon. Gentleman who occupied the Chair would adjourn the House to enable Mr. Speaker to attend to name some of the offenders. But he exercised a restraint admirable in character and consistent with the function and duties of a chairman.

I sat here listening to it all and had to restrain myself. I understand that later in the proceedings the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) was throwing missiles about. I suppose that that is what one would expect from the Shadow Minister of Defence.

Mr. F. V. Corfield (Gloucestershire, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is within the recollection of some hon. Members that the right hon. Gentleman is about the only hon. Member here who has ever actually struck someone in the House.

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is a point of history, not a point of order.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire)

On a further point of order. Could it be that the actual Minister of Defence has no missiles, real or otherwise?

Mr. Speaker

Points of order should be real points of order.

Mr. Shinwell

I have the inestimable advantage of never listening to anything which I do not want to hear.

However, since the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) has referred to an incident which occurred many years ago, perhaps I may be allowed to remind the House about it. Strangely enough, it happened on this very spot. The hon. Member who occupied this seat in the House in those days was an hon. and gallant Gentleman who was an ex-heavyweight champion of the Royal Navy.

There was no question of procedure. We were not discussing boundaries. I was speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, in my harmless and even innocuous fashion, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman told me to go back to Poland. I had never been in the place. My first visit to Poland occurred two or three years ago on behalf of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. That was the first time that I visited the place, and I did not like it, either. I am not surprised that my forebears left the place more than 100 years ago.

I heard that offensive remark and at first paid no attention to it. I had no intention of taking action by word or deed. However, the then hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston, Mr. John McGovern, who has now, unhappily, passed away, raised a point of order, and I was thereby involved. He asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman to apologise, and he refused. By the way, he was a Tory and one of the products of Eton. So I asked him to come outside, and he would not. I must confess that I did not know then that he had been the heavyweight champion of the Navy. If I had known, I would never have gone near him. I only learned that afterwards, but he suffered a little.

I may say, out of respect for the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has now retired from the House, that he poured coals of fire on my head later by complimenting me on a speech that I made on the subject of colonial development. I was greatly embarrassed by the knowledge and consciousness of committing an act which I would rather not have done.

What is it that we are discussing this afternoon? It boils down to a very simple issue. The Government want to get a Bill through the House. The Opposition want to prevent them getting the Bill. So there is a conflict. Has that never happened before in the House? I have been involved in any number of guillotine Motions, either on one side or the other. There is no reason why we should lose our tempers because of that.

What I object to more than anything else is the posture, the attitude and the behaviour of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone. Notice his language. I do not refer to that which he used against my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. We can pass that off. I refer to the language that he used this afternoon. He said to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, "You must do this." He said to the Government, "You must do that." Who does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think he is?

I recognise his ability. He knows that I do. I have referred to it more than once. But he lacks the quality of decency, and also the quality of compassion. It is a great pity. I would advise the Leader of the Opposition to take great care with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to be cautious of him. He may not be the kind of person to have alongside one in any crisis or emergency. He may be after the job of the Leader of the Opposition. After all, let us not forget that he left the other place. Why? He did very well there. It was because he hoped to become the Leader of his party.

This is the simple point. The Government want to get their Bill. I am not concerned about the merits of the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall tell the House why. I shall be leaving this place during the course of the next 12 or 18 months. I shall be sorry to depart from this assembly. It will be a severe wrench. However, I may not be very far away—one never knows—if only to keep an eye on the Tory Party. That is the reason why I say that I am not concerned about the merits of the Bill.

Whether there is merit or lack of merit in the Government's proposed legislation, the Opposition must understand that they are only the Opposition and not the Government—

Hon. Members

Must?

Mr. Manuel

Yes, "must".

Mr. Shinwell

I say this to the Leader of the Opposition—and I am not against him personally, although on the other side of the fence politically. He must recognise the inescapable fact that he is only Leader of the Opposition. As Leader of the Opposition he has to put up with a great deal, so he must put up with the decision of the Government to get the Bill—

Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)

By cheating.

Mr. Shinwell

From past experiences of innumerable occasions when a Guillotine as had to be applied, I suggest that the best thing for the Opposition is to argue rationally with all the knowledge, ability and experience they possess, in an attempt to convince the Government that they are wrong. If they fail, I ask them, as gentlemen, to act reasonably and decently and not make fools of themselves, thereby destroying the dignity of the House of Commons.

Mr. Wellbeloved

On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) use the word "cheaters." Is that a Parliamentary term?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

It has been held that a word must be a personal reference before it becomes unparliamentary and requires to be withdrawn.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon, North)

The House of Commons always enjoys listening to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), although I must say that I have never imagined him in his self-cast rôle of the elderly lady with her knitting sitting at the foot of the guillotine enjoying every moment of the proceedings.

There was only one point on which I part company with him. I hope that it can be said to my credit at least, if nothing else can, that I am no great lover of the Conservative Party and what it stands for. There have also been many occasions on which I have disagreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), but I have a very great respect for the way in which he has personally stood for what he believes is right, particularly in racial matters, where there are some very dangerous currents in this country and where there are very great difficulties not only in his own party but outside it. He has had the courage to make his views known.

I am delighted also that I have seated next door to me one who in the Birmingham, Ladywood by-election attacked, violently and successfully, a Fascist candidate to whom he, I believe rightly, referred to as an "Enoch Powell" candidate. I therefore believe that the remarks of the right hon. Member for Easington relating to the right hon. and learned Gentleman were not of the standard which the right hon. Member for Easing-ton himself would wish to apply in this House.

I hope that I take the Leader of the House with me when I say that he not only wishes to carry his Motion tonight but wishes to carry it by the genuine conviction of those hon. Members sitting behind him; voting not merely because the Whips are on but because they are genuinely convinced of the merits of the case. I am sure that that would be his wish. That being my belief, there are three points, and three points only, that I wish to make.

First, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that this is a Bill, whatever its merits, of constitutional importance; and that we are very careful in this House, unless there is good reason for it, about a Guillotine on matters of constitutional importance. He cited certain cases where a previous Conservative Government had introduced the Guillotine—Christmas Adjournment, Indian pensions, National Health Insurance, and other things—but I am sure that with the best will in the world he would not suggest that those items, however important, were of constitutional importance. But even were the right hon. Gentleman able to provide such examples, I must confess that when I find a Labour Government justifying their present actions by reference to past Tory precedents, I realise that they are scraping the barrel. I therefore want to put the following point to him.

This is a Bill of constitutional importance. It is not the only Bill of constitutional importance which we have recently discussed. It may possibly be within the recollection of the Leader of the House that we were recently discuss- ing a Parliament (No. 2) Bill for the reform of another place. We had a total of 14 days on that Bill, a total of 95 hours, and there was no question of a Guillotine—none at all. Indeed, there were even two days provided for Second Reading.

On the other hand, we are now discussing a Bill not merely to affect the character of this House but to deal with the particular rights of the electorate. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me there: that is what is in the Bill. Now, after one day devoted to Second Reading and one day spent in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman moves a guillotine Motion—

Mr. Molloy

rose—

Mr. Thorpe

I will give way in a moment, but I want to finish with this point.

What I want to know is this. If the right hon. Gentleman was so disinclined to have a Guillotine for the reform of another place, why has he overcome those scruples and now has no difficulty at all in proposing a Guillotine in respect of a Measure that affects the voting system to this House? Is it merely that he could not carry a majority of his own colleagues? If that is the case, I am sure that he would agree that the difference in motive is not what one might call the highest. Or is it that he regards discussion of the reform of another place as being of far greater Parliamentary significance and occupying a far higher priority in our time table than the distribution of seats in respect of election to this House?

It would be very interesting to know why he should treat the two Measures in such a different way. No doubt the Home Secretary will be able to elucidate. It is very strange that a Labour Government should be more anxious to provide time for a debate about another place than for a debate about the democratic rights of the electorate.

Mr. Molloy

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sure he will understand that I wished to make a small point a little earlier and before he reached his peroration.

The right hon. Gentleman was speaking of the grave importance of the debate which started in Committee yesterday, but would he not also accept that when we are talking about the country's constitution responsibilities are to be shared by all parties? Was it not revealed quite clearly by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone that, in so far as he could not get his way, instructions went out to organise a filibuster irrespective of what happened and that the Government were therefore left with no alternative?

Mr. Thorpe

Quite frankly, I am not concerned with the technical considerations on either side. I am concerned only with the terms of the Motion now before the House, so I hope I may be excused from following the hon. Gentleman up that avenue. All I am concerned about is the difference in treatment. There was compunction shown in the debate about another place, whereas there is no compunction at all about introducing a timetable Motion in regard to a matter which I consider to be constitutionally of greater importance. That is the issue. And hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are entitled to a reply from their own Front Bench, because I am satisfied that when they vote they will wish to do so out of intellectual conviction and not because the Whips are on.

My second point relates to the circumstances in which the announcement was made. The Home Secretary moved to report Progress. I must be excused if I do not quote him verbatim, because the OFFICIAL REPORT for that hour of the night is not yet available, but I think that it is right to say that he asked the Committee to agree to his Motion because of the progress that had been made. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this timetable Motion was not something that had been adopted lightly but had been discussed, so I must assume that the Home Secretary was privy to that decision; that he knew there was to be a timetable Motion.

What happened? The Home Secretary asked the Committee to agree to report Progress because of the progress that had been made, knowing full well that his real reason for wanting the Committee's agreement was that the Leader of the House might proceed to take time allotted to a private Member for an Adjournment debate—and who, as far as I know, was never even consulted—to announce that guillotine Motion would be moved to deal with a matter of constitutional importance, which many had alleged was tantamount to gerrymandering. If ever there was a case of compounding a felony it was there.

Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone)

The right hon. Gentleman was not here.

Mr. Thorpe

Certainly I was here. If the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), instead of asking the same question three times, would ask it once, he would hear the answer. I was here.

Mr. Mendelson

We did not see the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Thorpe

In that case the shortsightedness of the hon. Member has my sympathy and that of the House.

Mr. Mendelson

rose—

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Mr. Thorpe.

Mr. Mendelson

rose—

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order.

Mr. Thorpe

I suggest to the Home Secretary that with even his knowledge of the law he should know that those who obtain things by false pretences outside this House find themselves in considerable trouble. I ask the third question.

Mr. C. Pannell

And get a silly answer.

Mr. Thorpe

The right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) believes in a self-inflicted echo. I ask whether the Home Secretary realises why many of us genuinely feel that there should be a full debate on this Measure? It is not merely because it is of constitutional importance; that is accepted. It is not merely because it breaches the spirit of Acts of Parliament which this House has passed, but, very much more important, it may even be illegal.

I am not allowed to go into the merits of that allegation at this stage. I merely make this point, which I think is relevant to discussion of this Motion. The obligations placed on the Home Secretary under the 1949 Act—I refer particularly to Section 2(5)—are mandatory. He "shall" lay a report before Parliament, and he must do so as soon as may be". It is very interesting when one looks at the present Bill and at all those matters which are being repealed that there is no reference to any repeal of any part of that Act, still less of the obligation resting on the Home Secretary specifically to lay these reports before the House of Commons. That is why we believe that what the Government are doing may be illegal. It may be contrary not only to the spirit but to the practice of the legislation for which they themselves are responsible.

Mr. Callaghan

Test it.

Mr. Thorpe

The right hon. Gentleman says "Test it". I am coming to that. If this timetable Motion goes through—I hope in the interests of Parliament it does not—we should challenge this Government on the precedent of 29th June, 1950, to refer that specific matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. [Laughter.]

I am hardly surprised at the mirth at the suggestion that legislation which this House passed should be upheld. The mirth with which it has been received is wholly consistent with the manner in which this Bill has been approached by the Government. Had the right hon. Gentleman sought specifically to repeal those Sections of that Act he could justly say, "We are changing the law", but he has not done that. There is no reference to the mandatory obligation which this House and Parliament as a whole has placed upon him. Therefore he is in breach of an Act of Parliament which this House, indeed his own party, passed when they were the Government.

That is why we believe that on both—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman shows great confidence. I think he would take it from me that he has many qualities, but not that of being a legal expert. I do not profess to be a great expert in the law, but I profess to have made my living at it. I have never come to the Dispatch Box and, ignoring the due process of trial, announced that two men who had committed a murder had been arrested that morning. That is why I suggest to the Home Secretary that he might care to take the advice of the Attorney-General. If he has done so already, he should take it again on this point, because the Attorney-General is a very experienced and respected lawyer. The right hon. Gentleman may also care to consider a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which this House decided to make in connection with a privilege matter and the disqualification of an hon. Member.

I hope that hon. and right hon. Members opposite who vote tonight will do so out of real conviction that they are adding lustre to Parliamentary reform and that they can stand up and be proud members of the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, and that so far as concerns gerrymandering their conscience is clear.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

The main point of the speech of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) can be disposed of by saying that if he felt so strongly about the legal aspect of the matter he should have attended the debates we have had on this subject. It is an extraordinary state of affairs—quite unprecedented as far as I recall—that a right hon. Gentleman should wait until a guillotine Motion has been moved before putting such weighty considerations before the House. We have had a Second Reading of the Bill and the debate on the Motion introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). If the right hon. Member for Devon, North felt so deeply on these legal questions he had plenty of opportunity to raise them then.

I want to deal with some remarks made primarily by the Leader of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] In view of the fact that he made some very fierce remarks last night and some of his supporters prevented hon. Members replying to him on that occasion, he might at least have done the courtesy to the House of remaining for this important debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] The Leader of the Opposition, who said that this was so important a matter, has run away today. The Leader of the Opposition dared to refer—and some of us thought it most indecent—to my predecessor as the Member for Ebbw Vale. Hon. Members opposite vilified him in his lifetime. They might at least spare us the obscenity of their compliments to him after he is dead.

The Leader of the Opposition should have looked up the facts, precisely on this question of boundary reports. The last time the Boundary Commission reported to the House—in 1954—on major boundary changes my predecessor for Ebbw Vale intervened in the debate. He spoke against the proposals which were being made by the Government at that time and went into the Lobby on about half a dozen occasions against the boundary proposals of the Conservative Administration. Who was the Lords Commissioner helping to shuffle through those hon. Members on a three-line Whip to vote for measures under the Boundary Commission recommendations? Of course, he was the present Leader of the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—so he ought to have known.

As I tried to say last night, we all know that the Leader of the Opposition was not primarily concerned with the merits of the issue. The right hon. Gentleman, in view of his strenuous exertions in this manner, often reminds me of Pope Pius IX, the Risorgimento Pope. whom some people thought might become the leader of the Movement, Pope Pius said, "What? They want to make a Napoleon of me, who am only a poor country parson".

That is the stature of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who does not even dare to attend this important debate. I would much have preferred to have said it to his face than behind his back.

Mr. Roy Roebuck (Harrow, East)

Which face?

Mr. Foot

Yes, I agree. We have to decide which of his faces. However, I would much rather say it to both faces. The political epitaph of the right hon. Gentleman will be, "Once a Chief Whip, always a Chief Whip".

We all know that the right hon. Gentleman did not appreciate, perhaps, what he was doing in his speech last night when he referred to Ulster and Rhodesia. Some of us have thought that his failure to refer in the past to these matters, where real questions of civil liberty are involved, was due to mere political cowardice, but we see now that it is due also to a complete lack of political imagination. In Ulster, after 40 years of Tory rule, people have had to come on to the streets to fight for civil rights. They have had to bring their country to the verge of civil war to get local boundaries changed there. Yet the right hon. Gentleman dares to compare that situation with this Measure. So in Rhodesia, on which issue he has been so craven. If he was interested in Rhodesia, one might have thought that he would have used his voice in trying to deal with some of his hon. Friends who have spent all these months trafficking with treason.

We all know why the Opposition have got into such a state on the whole of this matter. It is nothing to do with the question of the Report of the Boundary Commission. It is due to the difficult situation in which the right hon. Gentleman is placed—the whole complication about his leadership. We all know what happened a few years ago when the Tories made the biggest mistake of their lives. When they had to choose a new captain, they put Jonah at the helm. All the time since then they have been looking around for some convenient whale to come around and relieve them of him.

My advice to hon. Gentlemen opposite—I do not expect they will always take my advice—is to tip him overboard. It would cause scarcely a ripple on the political surface. Maybe they will not take my advice. I shall not worry either, because I say this to the right hon. Gentleman and to hon. Members opposite. Particularly in view of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman behaved last night—the right hon. and learned Gentleman for St. Marylebone does these synthetic explosions far better than the Leader of the Opposition—let them leave him where he is. From our point of view he is a gift from the gods.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling (Barnet)

The time I have in which to sum up is short. Therefore, I will not on this occasion reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), which were as inaccurate as they were irrelevant to this discussion. I can sum up—[Interruption.] I have only a short time and if I cannot make my speech I am afraid the Home Secretary will lose part of his time.

I can sum up briefly what is involved, because the issue is narrow, though the implications are immense. A debate on a guillotine Motion is always very tightly drawn. The issue is merely whether the debates on the Bill should or should not be curtailed. We cannot discuss the merits of the Bill, though there has been some attempt to do so once or twice, but the nature of the Bill and the circumstances of its introduction are wholly relevant to the question whether discussion should be curtailed.

The Bill raises issues of great constitutional moment. Therefore, this is no conventional guillotine debate. We know these guillotine debates; we know how the usual arguments are bandied to and fro across the Floor of the House according to which side of the House one is sitting on. This is not one of those debates, because the Bill involves a very big constitutional issue.

We have not yet had from the Government any reason why debates should be curtailed. The Leader of the House said that it was necessary, but by declaring it to be necessary lie does not show it to be necessary. Therefore, the Home Secretary must explain to the House why the Committee stage of the Bill must end on 14th July. Why? There is no question here of disrupting the Government's programme. There is no question here, so far as I can see, of anything other than the Government's determination to rise for the Summer Recess on 25th July. Is there any other reason? This is a short Bill. The discussion would not have taken more than a few days in Committee. The Government, rather than giving those few days in Committee, are curtailing discussion on a Bill of the greatest possible importance.

It underlines the frivolity and cynicism with which the Home Secretary and others have approached the Bill that they should prefer to curtail discussion rather than wait a few more days before the summer holidays begin. They must recognise that what is involved here is not merely a constitutional issue but the issue of the whole good faith of the Government in this matter. They may argue that this is not a serious matter. Some hon. Members opposite appear almost to think that.

But nothing could be more serious than the distribution of Parliamentary seats in Britain, for surely an unbiased basis for a General Election is essential to democracy. That is why we have a Boundary Commission. That is why the views of an impartial Boundary Commission should not be departed from without full scrutiny and thorough argument.

Experience has led me in the last few years to believe that the integrity of our political system is the most precious of assets we have. I tried on many occasions when I was Colonial Secretary to develop for newly independent countries constitutions that could not be subverted. I realised then how a constitution could grow only by centuries of usage and how it can be so easily subverted by a short, sharp act of folly.

We have something here that we must not jeopardise, but I fear that the Government are doing so. Our system of government is unique, in that it gives almost unfettered power to the Government of the day, power that they may achieve by a very small majority of votes indeed at an election. Ours is a system of dictatorship of the majority party. [Interruption.] I ask hon. Members to listen closely to what I am saying, because it comes from a certain amount of study of and thought about these problems.

We have a system whereby a narrowly contested election may give to a party enormous and virtually unfettered power. I think that this is the right system, and it suits our country, though it may not suit others. It is an acceptable system only if the electoral system remains un-biased and if the Government of the day cannot twist it at any time to their advantage. This is the seriousness of the issue.

What is in issue is not so much the honour and the standing of the Government themselves, because I believe that much of this has been forfeited already by the introduction of the Bill. What is in issue, without a shadow of doubt, is the honour and the standing of Parliament. Let us not under-estimate the cynicism about Parliament which has prevailed in Britain in recent years. We know perfectly well the cynicism that abounds in the Press, in speeches. on television, and amongst our constituents—[Interruption.]—and it is not helped by interruption. We know the cynicism which abounds and I am sure that we recognise—we must recognise—how dangerous this is to our whole democratic process.

What will be the effect on the public of the Government's Motion today? The public in its attitude to Parliament divides itself into two sections. There are those who say, "Members of Parliament spend most of their time engaged in bickering and party manoeuvre, while the national interest slips by". There are many who say that, and those who do will feel confirmed in their judgment by what is happening here today. There are many others—the wiser ones, I believe—who still believe that Parliament, despite its many acknowledged faults, is a great institution. Those who still believe that will be saddened and shocked by what is happening. They will see a Government whose honour is publicly challenged trying to curtail discussion of the issues in which their honour is involved. They will see issues of great national moment submerged by the manipulation of a party vote.

Parliament is more important than any party or any Member of Parliament. Neither Parliament nor democracy can survive unless those who are in power for the time being are seen to be wielding their power honourably. If the Government persist in their policy on this Bill, they will write on the pages of history an indelible blot of shame.

5.22 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan)

If the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was not aware of it before this afternoon, he must know know that he has given deep offence to this side by the description which he applied last night, perhaps in the heat of the moment, to my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. He did it knowing that my right hon. Friend would not be able to answer. The trouble with the right hon. and learned Gentlemen is not that he is a bad man—he is not—hut that he is a political schizophrenic. This afternoon, he wound up his speech by saying that, if he had been properly approached, he would have apologised, but as he had not been properly approached he would repeat the offensive remark.

Yesterday, we had the charlatan. Today, we had the attempted statesman. It did not come off. The right hon. Gentleman will not receive the sympathy of the House—he must understand this, and I am sure that he does, as an old Parliamentarian—until he has made amends to my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. When he makes those amends, his opinions will be taken, as they usually are, at their face value, and they are usually worth quite a lot. I, therefore, suggest to him that he should take an early opportunity to make amends in the way that he knows.

In this afternoon's debate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have spoken of their reasons for not being willing to accept the guillotine Motion. One figure has been strangely absent, not just the Leader of the Opposition.[An HON. MEMBER: "The Prime Minister."] The Prime Minister, too, has been absent, but where is the "grandaddy" of us all, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod)? Where is the Member who has moved more guillotine Motions than any other, living or dead? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman turn up? Is it because he fears that he has given too many hostages to fortune, and, not only that, he has in the past even put two Bills in one guillotine Motion? There is productivity. The right hon. Gentleman did not come because he knows that he could have been challenged on a great many of the Motions and statements which he has made in the past. [Interruption.] We are not discussing the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is out of date. We are discussing the Motion on the Order Paper.

Sir John Langford-Holt (Shrewsbury)

What were the two Bills?

Mr. Callaghan

To the best of my recollection, they were a Transport Bill and a Scottish Housing Bill. That was one occasion. As for the second occasion, I do not recall at the moment; the hon. Gentleman can go and look it up for himself. [Interruption.] I know that the right hon. Gentleman got some stick today, but that was only in payment for what the Opposition did last night. It is now quits.

Lord Butler laid down certain conditions for a guillotine Motion. I shall repeat them because I think that they will appeal to hon. Members opposite. The first condition, he said, was: "Can we get the business by agreement?". We have had that discussion today. The answer is, "No, we cannot." The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone was pretty blunt about it. He said, "Unless you make substantial concessions to us"—in other words, unless it is the Opposition's Bill and not the Government's—"we do not propose to give it to you". That is clear enough. We understand where we are when he says it.

The Motion is brought in under Standing Order No. 43A. Under that Standing Order the first duty laid upon the Government is to make a formal approach to the Opposition and say to them, "Can we get the Bill by agreement?". The answer, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated, was "No." [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the hurry?"] I am dealing with the first of Lord Butler's conditions—Can we get the business by agreement? The answer is that we cannot. Therefore, the first condition for introducing a guillotine Motion is satisfied.

Last night, we had an interesting discussion. The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) took us on a tour of his roads. He discussed the employment situation in his constituency. He talked to us about the relations between his constituency and others in Devon. I thought it a most interesting holiday visit, but it had nothing whatever to do with the subject under discussion. I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the fact that the speeches were short makes them no less irrelevant on that account. It is no more valuable in terms of proving one's point to have 50 irrelevant speeches of ten minutes each than to have five irrelevant speeches of 100 minutes each. A lot of the speeches last night had nothing to do with the subject which we were discussing. They were just on the right side of the bounds of order. Hon. Members opposite were determined to make such speeches because they did not intend to give us the Bill. They know that. We understand it. We intend to take the appropriate action in answer. That has always been understood, no matter who spoke from this Front Bench, and it is understood now.

The Government have what the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) called the dictatorship of a temporary majority. Of course they have, and they use their majority to ensure that their business goes through. It may be an odd concept when the Tories are in opposition. They may think that we ought not to do it and think it odd that we propose to govern in the same way as they governed. We intend to get our Bill.

The second condition which Lord Butler laid down was: "Is there adequate time for discussion?" Let us look at that. By the time we finish the Bill there will have been 30 hours of discussion. It contains three operative Clauses. With one of them the Opposition are in wholehearted agreement. The controversy is related to two Clauses, and two only, covering about three octavo pages of the Bill.

There is nothing technical about it. It is not as though we are having difficult discussions on abstruse issues. The Clauses raise two simple issues. First, should the redistribution go on or not? Second, should a small number of very large constituencies be broken up? Those are the only two issues. We shall have 30 hours in which to discuss whether those two questions should be answered "Yes" or "No". The right hon. Member for Barnet referred to growing cynicism among the public. They will think that we are a pretty poor lot if the Opposition cannot make up their mind in 30 hours on two subjects of that magnitude.

The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party made his usual sneering references to my lack of knowledge of the law. I admit that I did not have his good fortune to go to Eton. I did not have his good fortunte to go to Trinity College. I did not have his good fortune to be president of the Oxford Union. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman on this subject before. The right hon. Gentleman adopts an upper class arrogance that only somebody who went to Eton and Oxford can adopt.

The right hon. Gentleman told me that he did not want the Guillotine justified by reference to what Tory Governments had done on constitutional issues. Very well. I will not do anything of the sort; I will justify it by reference to what Liberal Governments did. Let us look at what the Liberal Governments did against the Conservatives; let us look at what the right hon. Gentleman calls constitutional Bills within the broadest meaning of the term. The Government of Ireland Bill, 1893—guillotined by the Liberal Government. Was not that a constitutional issue? The Plural Voting Bill, 1906—guillotined by the Liberal Government. A Bill dealing with the relations of the two Houses and the duration of Parliament—guillotined by the Liberal Government. The Parliament Bill of 1911—guillotined by the Liberal Government. Another Plural Voting Bill in 1914—guillotined by the Liberal Government. Two Government of Ireland Bills in 1912 and 1914, in successive Sessions, guillotined by the Liberal Government.

Mr. Thorpe

rose—

Mr. Callaghan

I am not attacking the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the Minister does not give way the right hon. Gentleman must take his seat.

Mr. Thorpe

rose—

Mr. Callaghan

I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am defending the record of the last Liberal Government on these things. I think that they were probably right to introduce guillotine Motions at that time. The right hon. Gentleman should not complain about it and should not so far forget the good his ancestors did by attacking us when we try to repeat it now. So, I answer both the second criterion of Lord Butler and the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman by the simple facts of the situation.

The third question that was posed by Lord Butler was, is the guillotine essential? This is a question that I should certainly try to answer. We think that it is essential for a number of reasons.

An Hon. Member

The holidays.

Mr. Callaghan

I hope that it is not basically that. One of the basic reasons why I think that it is important that the Bill should go through is that it is very important for the G.L.C. elections for the candidates who are being selected to know where they stand on this issue. They must know whether they are likely to be selected on the old or new basis. The Bill deals with about 92 constituencies, and about 92 seats in the case of the G.L.C., and for this reason it is important that we should remove doubts from the issue as soon as possible.

The other essence of the matter is that the constituency parties also wish to know where they are on these matters. It is important that we should remove doubt. In my view—and it is the Government's view—the Guillotine is essential for this purpose.

Mr. Emery

rose—

Mr. Callaghan

I have only three minutes left.

I have now dealt with all three of Lord Butler's criteria. He took the view that there was much to be said in favour of a Guillotine Motion when one had a short, non-technical; it is a simple Bill that matches that description. It is short and non-technical; it is a simple Bill that could clearly be debated and decided within the limit of 30 hours, unless the Opposition were determined to ensure that we could not get it, and they have said that they are determined that we shall not get it. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) has told us in the country that we shall not get it. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) told us that the Opposition would use every political means at their disposal to ensure that we did not get it. We understand their position. Probably in their place we would do the same. If they were in our place they would certainly make sure that they got their Bill, and that is exactly what we shall do.

I come to the one other point that has been made, which is that we cannot accept that a minority group can veto a Bill of this sort. There have been suggestions by some newspapers encouraging another place to mutilate the Bill. It would be a very serious matter if the Tory majority in the House of Lords did not recognise that the Bill deals essentially with the constitution of the House of Commons.

It would be quite simple, although it would involve the expenditure of a great deal of Parliamentary time, for the Orders to be laid. I say to the right hon. Member for Devon, North that there would be no difficulty in laying them. Having laid them, I could not necessarily command the support of all hon. Gentlemen in voting for them. They would have to decide for themselves.

The idea of one man, one vote, one value is absurd when I hear it in the mouth of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Conservatives won the General Election in 1951 on a minority of votes. They had a majority of 26. How much did we hear then about the sanctity of one man, one vote, one value? Right hon. and hon. Members opposite adopt it when convenient, and they will drop it as soon as it ceases to be convenient. We are not taken in by that synthetic indignation, or even the synthetic applause for the Leader of the Opposition last night. There has been nothing like the fluttering of order papers we saw last night since Nevile Chamberlain returned from Munich.

Division No. 314.]	AYES	[5.38 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Grey, Charles (Durham)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Dalyell, Tam	Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Alldritt, Walter	Darling, Rt. Hn. George	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Allen, Scholefield	Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Anderson, Donald	Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Archer, Peter	Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)	Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Ashley, Jack	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Hamling, William
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)	Delargy, Hugh	Harper, Joseph
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Dell, Edmund	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Dempsey, James	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Dewar, Donald	Haseldine, Norman
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Diamond, Rt. Hn. John	Hattersley, Roy
Barnes, Michael	Dickens, James	Hazell, Bert
Barnett, Joel	Dobson, Ray	Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Baxter, William	Doig, Peter	Heffer, Eric S.
Bence, Cyril	Driberg, Tom	Henig, Stanley
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Dunn, James A.	Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Bidwell, Sydney	Dunnett, Jack	Hilton, W. S.
Binns, John	Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Hooley, Frank
Bishop, E. S.	Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Blackburn, F.	Eadie, Alex	Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Edelman, Maurice	Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Howie, W.
Boston, Terence	Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Ellis, John	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Boyden, James	English, Michael	Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Bradley, Tom	Ennals, David	Hynd, John
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Ensor, David	Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Brooks, Edwin	Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Jackson, Colin (B'h'sc & Spenb'gh)
Broughton, Sir Alfred	Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	Janner, Sir Barnett
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Fernyhough, E.	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Finch, Harold	Jeger, George (Goole)
Buchan, Norman	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Foley, Maurice	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Cant, R. B.	Forrester, John	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Carmichael, Neil	Fowler, Gerry	Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Fraser, John (Norwood)	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Freeson, Reginald	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Chapman, Donald	Galpern, Sir Myer	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Coleman, Donald	Gardner, Tony	Judd, Frank
Concannon, J. D.	Garrett, W. E.	Kelley, Richard
Conlan, Bernard	Ginsburg, David	Kenyon, Clifford
Crartdock, George (Bradford, S.)	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Crawshaw, Richard	Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Cronin, John	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Lawson, George
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Gregory, Arnold	Leadbitter, Ted

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone spoke about a failure to disclose our intentions. They said that we were concealing the truth, that our integrity was in question, and that there was a question of our honour. They seem to have forgotten Suez. Then there was a cold, calculated, frigid deception of the House that went on day after day. Neither I nor my colleagues are willing to take lessons in honour and honesty from a Front Bench that was then part of that Government, nor are we prepared to listen to the strictures of the Leader of the Opposition, who whipped them all into the Lobby then in support of a policy of trickery, deceit and deception.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 246.

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)	Newens, Stan	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip	Silverman, Julius
Lee, John (Reading)	Oakes, Gordon	Skeffington, Arthur
Lestor, Miss Joan	Ogden, Eric	Slater, Joseph
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)	O'Malley, Brian	Small, William
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Oram, Albert E.	Snow, Julian
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Orme, Stanley	Spriggs, Leslie
Lipton, Marcus	Owen, Dr. David (Plymoutn, S'tn)	Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.
Lomas, Kenneth	Owen, Will (Morpeth)	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Loughlin, Charles	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)	Storehouse, Rt, Hn. John
Luard, Evan	Palmer, Arthur	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Park, Trevor	Symonds, J. B.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Parker, John (Dagenham)	Taverne, Dick
McCann, John	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
MacColl, James	Pavitt, Laurence	Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
MacDermot, Niall	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)	Thornton, Ernest
Macdonald, A. H.	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred	Tinn, James
McGuire, Michael	Pentland, Norman	Tomney, Frank
McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, s.)	Tuck, Raphael
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)	Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)	Urwin, T. W.
Mackie, John	Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.	Varley, Eric G.
Mackintosh, John P.	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Maclennan, Robert	Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Price, William (Rugby)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
McNamara, J. Kevin	Probert, Arthur	Wallace, George
Marion, Peter (Preston. S.)	Pursey, Cmdr. Harry	Watkins, David (Consett)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Randall, Harry	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Rankin, John	Weitzman, David
Manuel, Archie	Rees, Merlyn	Wellbeloved, James
Mapp, Charles	Rhodes, Geoffrey	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Marks, Kenneth	Richard, Ivor	Whitaker, Ben
Marquand, David	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	White, Mrs. Eirene
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy	Whitlock, William
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)	Wilkins, W. A.
Mayhew, Christopher	Robertson, John (Paisley)	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mendelson, John	Rodgers, William (Stockton)	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Millan, Bruce	Roebuck, Roy	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Ross, Rt. Hn. William	Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Molloy, William	Rowlands, E.	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Moonman, Eric	Ryan, John	Winnick, David
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)	Woof, Robert
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Sheldon, Robert	Wyatt, Woodrow
Morris, John (Aberavon)	Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Moyle, Roland	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Murray, Albert	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)	Mr. Ernest Armstrong and
Neal, Harold	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)	Mr. Neil McBride.
	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Bryan, Paul	Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M)	Doughty, Charles
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian	Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Astor, John	Bullus, Sir Eric	Drayson, G. B.
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Burden, F. A.	Eden, Sir John
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)	Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)	Emery, Peter
Balniel, Lord	Carlisle, Mark	Errington, Sir Eric
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Batsford, Brian	Channon, H. P. G.	Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Bell, Ronald	Chataway, Christopher	Eyre, Reginald
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Chichester-Clark, R.	Farr, John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)	Clark, Henry	Fisher, Nigel
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Clegg, Walter	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Biffen, John	Cooke, Robert	Fortescue, Tim
Biggs-Davison, John	Cooper-Key, Sir Neill	Foster, Sir John
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel	Corfield, F. V.	FraseT, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Black, Sir Cyril	Costain. A. P.	Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Blaker, Peter	Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	Gibson-Watt, David
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	Crouch, David	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Body, Richard	Crowder, F. P.	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Bossom, Sir Clive	Cunningham, Sir Knox	Glover, Sir Douglas
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Currie, G. B. H.	Glyn, Sir Richard
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Dalkeith, Earl of	Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Braine, Bernard	Dance, James	Goodhart, Philip
Brewis, John	Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)	Goodhew, Victor
Brinton, Sir Tatton	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Gower, Raymond
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Dean, Paul	Grant, Anthony
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Digby, Simon Wingfield	Gresham Cooke, R.

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.	Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain	Ridsdale, Julian
Hall, John (Wycombe)	McMaster, Stanley	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)	Royle, Anthony
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Maddan, Martin	Russell, Sir Ronald
Harris, Reader (Heston)	Maginnis, John E.	Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Marten, Neil	Scott, Nicholas
Harvie Anderson, Miss	Maude, Angus	Scott-Hopkins, James
Hastings, Stephen	Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald	Sharples, Richard
Hawkins, Paul	Mawby, Ray	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Hay, John	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Silvester, Frederick
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Sinclair, Sir George
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Heseltine, Michael	Monro, Hector	Speed, Keith
Higgins, Terence L.	Montgomery, Fergus	Stainton, Keith
Hill, J. E. B.	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Hirst, Geoffrey	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	Stodart, Anthony
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Tapsell, Peter
Holland, Philip	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Hordern, Peter	Munro-Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh	Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Hornby, Richard	Murton, Oscar	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Howell, David (Guildford)	Nabarro, Sir Gerald	Temple, John M.
Hunt, John	Neave, Airey	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Tilney, John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Nott, John	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)	Onslow, Cranley	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian	Vickers, Dame Joan
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Osborn, John (Hallam)	Waddington, David
Jopling, Michael	Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
		Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Page, John (Harrow, W.)	Walters, Dennis
Kerby, Capt. Henry	Pardoe, John	Ward, Dame Irene
Kershaw, Anthony	Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)	Weatherill, Bernard
Kimball, Marcus	Peel, John	Wells, John (Maidstone)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Percival, Ian	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Kitson, Timothy	Peyton, Jonn	Wiggin, A. W.
Knight, Mrs. Jill	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Lambton, Viscount	Pink, R. Bonner	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Lane, David	Pounder, Rafton	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Lawler, Wallace	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Prior, J. M. L.	Woodnutt, Mark
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Pym, Francis	Worsley, Marcus
Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)	Quennell, Miss J. M.	Wright, Esmond
Longden, Gilbert	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James	Younger, Hn. George
Lubbock, Eric	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen	Rees-Davies, W. R.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
MacArthur, Ian	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David	Mr. R. W. Elliott and
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Mr. Jasper More.

Resolved, That pursuant to Standing Order No. 43A (Allocation of time to Bills) the Committee on the Bill shall report the Bill on or before Monday 14th July and as respects proceedings in that Committee the Business Committee shall make recommendations to the House.