INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

HC Deb 25 January 1971 vol 810 cc167-277

Question again proposed.

10.15 p.m.

Mrs. Castle

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Motion, in line 5, leave out "ten" and insert "thirty."

This is an attempt to get the Government even at this late hour, to face up to some of the realities that we have been discussing.

I noticed with some interest the cheer which the Prime Minister got when he arrived belatedly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]. I am glad that this gives such comfort to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, because I must tell the Prime Minister that during the debate of the last few hours they have certainly needed it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]. As will no doubt happen on more than one occasion for, at any rate, some few months ahead, the Government will win the vote and lose the argument.

If the Prime Minister had taken the Bill as seriously as he said he does and had therefore been present to listen to the debate on the timetable Motion. he would have realised—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Amendment?"]—that what has been happening in the House of Commons during the past few hours is that his followers, loyally in pursuit of his leadership, have been riding roughshod —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—over the rights of the Opposition in this Parliament. In moving this Amendment I am giving him and his followers an opportunity to try to save some of their shattered reputation.

We have during the afternoon been discussing the number of hours that the Government intend to devote to the Committee stage of the Bill—[Interruption.] I know that democracy is not a matter of concern to hon. Members opposite— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and that is why they intend to try to drown the argument that I shall seek to put. None the less, I shall continue to put that argument, and it will be heard in the country if it is not heard here.

What we are putting forward in the Amendment is a totally reasonable claim for the amount of time necessary for the Committee to give serious consideration to what the right hon. Gentleman claims is the priority piece of legislation of his Government. It is he who has given the importance to the Bill we shall be attempting to discuss in Committee in the coming weeks. It is he who has said that it is vital to the economy of the country. It is he who has said that it has far-reaching consequences. So, taking his assessment of the Bill, we are arguing now that the Government should give a corresponding amount of time to it.

The facts of the position have been admitted by the Leader of the House earlier in the debate; namely, that for this massive and complicated piece of legislation, consisting of 150 Clauses and eight Schedules, the Government intend to dictate to Parliament that it shall have 100 hours of debate in Committee.

I have conceded that when we discuss a guillotine Motion we are discussing something intended to enable a Government to attempt to get their business through the House. I have been arguing —nothing has prevented right hon. and hon. Members opposite from having their vote tonight, so they need not make any great issue of it—that what we are discussing here is not a wrecking Amendment by the Opposition but a reasonable and legitimate claim to a fair share of debate under Parliamentary democracy. I am afraid—it is a failing of mine—that in putting my argument earlier I have been over-generous to the Government. Leaning over backwards, as is my wont, to be fair—[Laughter.]—and this is one of the occasions when one deeply regrets that the people of this country cannot see the frivolity of the Government—[Laughter.]—who believe that provocation is the equivalent of strength, who believe that laughter is an argument, a Government who rely on the vote instead of reasoning to get their business through.

In saying that this guillotine Motion, as it stands, would allow something like 40 minutes for each of these very important Clauses, I was being totally overgenerous to the Government. Indeed, it has been pointed out to me, as the Sunday Times was pointing out yesterday, that this is indeed a travesty of the truth. Out of those 40 minutes—the Sunday Times put the estimate much lower than that; it put it at something over half an hour per Clause—10 minutes will be occupied with reading and voting on the Clause as it is finally amended and another 10 taken up by the Opposition Amendment (assuming there is only one) itself. This leaves a meagre 10 minutes for the debate. I have argued, and will continue to argue —I believe that all thoughtful people will be with me in this—that in a constitutional Bill of this importance, to allow something like 10 minutes per Clause is to make a travesty of Parliamentary argument.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

If the right hon. Lady—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

Order. I hope that hon. Members will behave in a proper parliamentary manner. The right hon. Lady has given way to the hon. Gentleman and he is entitled to be heard.

Mr. Wells

If the right hon. Lady will be kind enough to read a little further on in the article, as far as my memory serves me, I think it went on to say that this is a gross over-simplification of the facts.

Mrs. Castle

I shall be delighted to continue to read from the article. It continues: It won't work out like that in detail, of course"—

Hon. Members

Get on with it.

Mrs. Castle

Yes, hon. Members want the whole of it, and they will get it.

Hon. Members

Just read it.

Mrs. Castle

because the timetable Motion groups many Clauses together, but that is the hypothetical average. The Opposition's answer must be to impose a tough discipline on speeches by Labour"—

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mrs. Castle

by Labour militants".

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mrs. Castle

Are hon. Members suggesting that militants have no rights in the House? Have they their own selective version of democracy? [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] I shall. Hon. Members need not worry. Our version of democracy is that every hon. Member elected to the House has the right to express the views of his constituents. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We do not say that that right is to be modified according to whether they be Right, Left, Centre, extreme Right or extreme Left; they are Members of the House and they have the right to speak. I am glad to see that the Leader of the House repudiates his own backwoodsmen who so degrade parliamentary democracy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read on."] Yes, I shall read on. "Ironically", it continues——

Mr. Norman Tebbit (Epping) rose——

Mrs. Castle

I have been asked to read on, and I intend to do so when the filibusters allow me to. Ironically, Tory backbenchers who would otherwise stay silent—or at least be brief—in order to help the Government's progress, now have no incentive to do so. Therefore, one of the by-products of this guillotine is that, out of the 30 minutes per Clause, we not only have the 10 minutes taken up with reading and voting on the Clause and another 10 minutes taken up by the moving of an Amendment, but we shall have in addition the claims made on the time by Government backbenchers liberated by the guillotine to make the travesty of opposition even more obvious. It is totally impossible in that situation for the Opposition to exercise even minimal rights in the coming debate.

The very same passage in the Sunday Times goes on to warn us of what a backlog of Government Amendments is now waiting to break forth upon us. We are told that the Government are planning at least two radical changes in the Industrial Relations Bill during the Bill's Committee stage. One of them is to deal with the fact that the whole of the work of the C.I.R. is now in jeopardy because the Government's high handed imposition of legal restrictions on trade unions has led to the resignation of the two most prominent trade union members of the Commission. The Government know perfectly well that, in the context of this Bill, the Commission on Industrial Relations as an independent body will cease to exist, so they are in great difficulty about how they can get the so-called representative trade union membership. We are told that "a big concession" is to be made by the right hon. Gentleman, one that has been forced on him by the recent resignation of trade union representatives Will Paynter and Alf Allen from the Commission. So the right hon. Gentleman is to introduce an Amendment in a desperate attempt to give a phoney appearance of independence to the Commission, which he has now made the instrument of his legislative restrictions on trade unions.

Next, we are told that the second big Amendment planned for the Committee stages comes under Part IV, the section that sets out new rules for the Registrar of Trade Unions". This—I quote with delight for the hon. Gentleman's benefit—is what the Sunday Times said: It apparently requires a complete overhaul to make sense, and the plight of parliamentary draftsmen is not helped by the concession Robert Carr has made to the 'professional' lobby. Doctors, nurses, and dentists have wrung from the Government a commitment that a second register will be set up to deal with their special interests. The Commission on Industrial Relations will have its terms of reference extended to include the interests of professionally qualified workers and a 'professional' person will be appointed to the Commission. Riding hard on the backs of the doctors are other bodies like the various associations of engineers. The rules will be changed to help them too. The Government also plans to clear up the mass of sloppy wording in the Bill during the Committee stage. Bluntly, the Bill is in a technical mess. It will take more than 50 Amendments to clear things up. And these 50 Amendments to clear up the right hon. Gentleman's technical mess will be taken out of our 30 minutes per Clause, thus denying us the opportunity——

Sir Harmar Nicholls

The article also refers to my Amendment. Why is the right hon. Lady anti-Equity?

Mrs. Castle

The article has a whole lot about how the Government will try to persuade the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment, which will also take up a large amount of time, on behalf of Equity. What amount of time will be left for the National Union of Seamen, which has equal rights with Equity, professional bodies or anyone else? Can hon. Members opposite dare to explain their attitude when representatives of that Union come to the Bar of the House and protest against the gagging of the expression of the views of their union? This is a total travesty of Parliamentary democracy.

Sir Harmar Nicholls rose——

Mrs. Castle

I will give way to the representative of the National Union of Seamen from the Government benches if there is one, but I will not give way to anyone else.

Sir Harmar Nicholls rose——

Mrs. Castle

I shall not give way.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

On a point of order. Is it not a rule of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if the right hon. Lady mentions an hon. Member, as she has in my case, she gives way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

Order. That is not a rule of the House. The right hon. Lady does not have to give way if she does not wish to do so.

Mrs. Castle

The hon. Gentleman will take enough of our small Commitee time. He will not take the time of my speech now.

I ask the Prime Minister in all seriousness, does he think that we can make Parliamentary democracy work when on a Bill of this kind, which strikes at the rights of democratic institutions in this country, those institutions will not even have a couple of minutes to put their case in Committee? That is the reality of the situation we face. The Prime Minister has talked a lot about uniting the nation. My heavens! He is hell bent on dividing it now. The guillotine Motion is the practical demonstration of that. He is fond of saying that he will be judged by deeds, not words. We have had the Government perpetrate a deed tonight that is evidence of the divisions they will force through our society.

I say in all seriousness to the Prime Minister that in moving the Amendment I am giving him a realistic and constructive alternative. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members opposite really believed in argument, they would stop tittering and try to listen. What are we asking for in the Amendment? We have been told that we can have ten more days—ten more days for those 16 groups of detailed Amendments that I spelt out in my speech earlier in the debate. We are asking for 30 more days.

Mr. Speaker has indicated that he is not calling our Amendment relating to the lengths of sittings. I make it clear that, even if he had done so, if the Government were prepared to concede the number of days we are asking for, we would not have asked for the further extension of hours proposed in that Amendment because what we are seeking to do is just to get the minimum requirement for a proper discussion of the Bill, Clause by Clause, through the Committee Stage, because we know—because we have studied the Bill, as most hon. Members opposite have not—the grave implications of every one of these Clauses for people whose interests are being damaged through this Bill. We are fighting for their right to have those interests expressed in Parliamentary debate.

If we were to get 30 days in Committee instead of the allotted ten, at eight hours each that would still merely give us, with the time we have already spent on the Bill, 260 hours in Committee. If that time were allotted, it would be perfectly feasible, at two sittings a week of eight hours each, to get the Bill out of Committee and reported by 14th May. That would be compatible with the Government's normal right to keep to their timetable and the minimum necessary to make the discussion in Committee compatible with anyone's conception of democracy.

Therefore, I ask the Leader of the House to accept the Amendment without further debate. It is asking far less than the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) asked for when I was Minister of Transport and we were discussing the Transport Bill. [Interruption.] Yes, it is true. We had already had 104 hours in Committee on that Bill and several times I had personally tried to negotiate a voluntary agreement with the right hon. Gentleman before we reluctantly were forced to introduce a timetable Motion. When we came to it, the right hon. Gentleman said, "Yes. I said when I was asked about a timetable that I wanted 450 hours in Committee." —[HON. MEMBERS: "It was a much bigger Bill."]—No. It was a Bill of 152 Clauses because the then Government, to meet the arguments about the length of the Bill, dropped 14 Clauses in Committee because they were not strictly essential.

Mr. Robert Adley (Bristol, North-East)

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Castle

No. I am sorry, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman can catch Mr. Speaker's eye.

We pointed out to the right hon. Member for Worcester that such a timetable as he proposed would mean that we could not get the Bill within a normal Session. He said, "We will sit throughout the Whitsun Recess, all the hours of the day and night, because we are so passionately concerned with these issues of quality licensing and quantity licensing and rural buses and the rest."

But here we have a Bill of profound constitutional importance that not only sets up a new court but makes a whole lot of new policy issues justiciable. It is a Bill that anyone who understands the importance of the situation to the country would be very anxious to have properly discussed, because what it does is to alter the whole rôle of the judiciary in our constitution, and that ought to be the concern of every one of us, apart from the fact that it is dealing with individual rights of citizens and the collective rights of the massive representative bodies of the trade union movement, which hon. Members opposite treat with contempt but which we in this House ought not so to do.

Therefore, I say that, in asking for 240 more hours of Committee stage at the reasoned pace of two days a week, sitting until midnight each day, and getting the Bill reported by 14th May, we are asking for the very minimum of our democratic rights. We are to have far less time than our own Government gave in an equivalent debate on the Iron and Steel Bill, which we knew aroused great passions on the opposite side of the House and on which the time allocation was far more generous. We are asking for less then we were given on the Trade Disputes Bill of 1927. We are asking for than we have a right to expect, if we are to retain respect in the country for the proceedings of this House of Commons.

We on this side of the House believe in Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite no more believe in Parliament than they do in the Commonwealth, and they are hell bent on destroying both. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It will be a sad day when we here at Westminster are treated like some people were treated at Singapore.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Singapore is not quite in order on this matter.

Mrs. Castle

Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am the most orderly Member of this House, I bow to your Ruling, but I hope that some hon. Gentlemen opposite are restrained as you are restraining me.

The approach of the Government is all of a piece. It is high-handed arrogance. They believe that the number of votes in the House of Commons is the only thing that counts. It will be the undoing of the Government, because the people of this country care about democratic debate, if hon. Members opposite do not. The people know who are the real custodians of it. I put a simple test to the Government tonight: "Accept this Amendment and prove you really believe in democracy".

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Swain

I support the Amendment, because the Motion that has just gone through the House has disfranchised me in this House, and my constituents and my trade union from having a voice in the Committee stage of this Bill from now on. You have got enough here in the Smoke Room to pass ten Motions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Will the hon. Gentleman please address me?

Mr. Swain

Will the right hon. Gentleman who keeps opening his trap address you with the same courtesy as I address you?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

All hon. Gentlemen address me with great courtesy.

Mr. Swain

It appears to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when a man becomes a right hon. Gentleman on the Tory benches he changes biologically from a man to a pig. [Interruption.]

Mr. Arthur Lewis

That is an insult to pigs. Shame on you!

Mr. Swain

The Government appear not to be prepared to listen to any argument. I make no apology for taking part in the demonstration, which was so successful. With the speed and efficiency with which the Smoke Room emptied at a quarter to ten, one would have thought that someone had rung for a count. Hon. Members came into the Chamber like wildcats. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] Hon. Members opposite have not been here all day and do not know whether we are debating a guillotine Motion or the abolition of hanging.

The point that I want to make, if I am allowed to do so in the atmosphere of ignorance which I am now facing, is that my trade union, a very proud trade union, the National Union of— [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] When hon. Members have had as many blisters on their hands as on their backsides, they can talk like that. I want to defend the right of that trade union, which has a set of democratic rules and which has 20 members representing it in the House, not as many as the C.B.I. by a long way—

Mr. Michael Fidler (Bury and Radcliffe)

On a point of order. Are there any hon. Members in the House who represent trade unions? Are we not representing constituents?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Swain

Unlike the hon. Member, I am honest enough to declare my interest, which is more than he can say. He comes sneaking in here at ten minutes to ten——

Mr. Fidler

On a point of order. Is it in order for any hon. Member to misrepresent another hon. Member's attendance—almost throughout the day in my case—and to allege that it is so different from the facts?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

These things are done a great deal in the House. There is nothing very serious about it. However, I ask the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) not to seek inspiration from the other side of the House but to make his own speech in his own way.

Mr. Swain

Anyone seeking inspiration from the Government side would be like a surgeon performing a delicate operation and washing his hands in a dustbin.

Coming back to the Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—this is the first speech which many hon. Members opposite have heard tonight. They want a filibuster; all right.

The Amendment would allow Opposition Members to make their case, but it would also allow Government supporters to make theirs, if they have one. Not all constituents voted for hon. Members opposite. We believe in representing constituents whether they voted for us or not, but Tory Members represent only the Tory section of the community and not the large Labour minority, which is 100 per cent, against the Bill, both inside and outside the trade union movement. The Labour supporters in their constituencies do not use the same clubs, so I do not know how the hell the Tories know what they are talking about.

We know very well that the Leader of the House rarely takes any notice of anybody who speaks in the House, either from his side or our side.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It is not a shame because he is chattering away like a cageful of monkeys. He is not listening to anybody. He has no intention of listening. He is depending on the new lobby-fodder to get him out of the hole he has dug.

The Amendment would give us all an opportunity of ventilating the case. We shall not always be right, and we shall not always be wrong. But in the House we have every right to claim the democratic right to represent our constituents in the way for which they elected us. That is not only to go through the Lobby as lobby-fodder, as does the Smoke-Room first team every night, but to make a case on behalf of our constituents.

I am proud that I represent a majority of Socialist-inclined people. But during the last few weeks I have met quite a number of employers in my constituency who really understand the situation and the problems facing the nation, and who have tried through consultation to rectify the troubles which they have had in and around their works. I am putting their case tonight equally as much as I am putting that of the trade unions, because, thank God, everybody in the House does not represent bad employers, if that mob over there do.—[An HON. MEMBER:" Which mob?"]—You lot.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) must address his remarks to me.

Mr. Swain

I would not dream of bringing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, down to the level of that lot over there. It would not be my dying wish to do that. I respect you far too much to bring you to their level.

I hope and trust that the House will accept the Amendment. It was moved very moderately and sensibly, which is more than we can say of the speeches we have heard from the Government Front Bench tonight. If my right hon. Friend's Amendment were carried, I am convinced that if we have to have a trade union Bill—this Bill is not the answer to the problems—I should have been prepared to vote for it from its title to its full stop without trying to amend it. But this Bill is so vicious in its reading and possible application that it should have been guillotined at birth, and the people who conceived it ought to have met a similar fate. I say that in all seriousness because the Bill will be not only the ruination of consultation within the trade unions—[Interruption.] I wish that hon. Members opposite would be quiet. I think that some of your wives do not let you talk when you are at home.

I would ask the Leader of the House, if he has a grain of fair play in him, which I very much doubt, to accept this Amendment, in the interests of parliamentary democracy. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] Someone says "Oh". Hon. Members may say that what we did tonight was not in the interests of Parliamentary democracy, but it was. We objected to the way something was done and we used parliamentary methods. No one was named by Mr. Speaker, so we must have been reasonably well within order.

This is a reasonable Amendment which deserves serious consideration by the Government because it is in the interests of their Bill. I have been among trade unionists this weekend and I know that the possibility of the guillotine has enraged not only the militants but the moderates whom the right hon. Gentleman was claiming to have on his side.

He said that 80 per cent. of the rank-and-file moderates supported his proposals but I would say that even the moderates have turned against him.

If this Bill becomes law, which in the final analysis it will, then it cannot possibly work without the co-operation of the trade unions. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman this— and I would have told the Prime Minister it if he had waited to hear the debate: this country cannot carry on without the co-operation of the trade union movement. It has been proved that the trade union movement is the backbone of consultation, a strong influence—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] on which the whole of the economy is based. The hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) says "Oh."

Mrs. Peggy Fenner (Rochester and Chatham)

indicated dissent.

Mr. Swain

I apologise to the hon. Lady. There are so many people over there who sound like women. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think about the effect of introducing the guillotine. Give us another 30 days. If, as my right hon. Friend says, the Bill needs all these Amendments, then it needs ripping up. Nevertheless, we have it before the House and I claim the right as a back-bencher representing the constituency of Derbyshire, North-East, let alone the National Union of Mineworkers, to take part in any debate in this House, within certain limits and within the rules of order. I claim my franchise as backbencher to speak when I want, if I want and how I want, within the rules of order, on any Bill that is brought before the House.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. John Page

We have listened to two pompous lectures from the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) on parliamentary democracy. If my speech is held to be pompous I hope that it will not contain the synthetic indignation contained in those two speeches. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite are afraid to hear about it. The hon. Member tried to give the impression that he was passionately defending the rights of those who elected him. Then, in the middle of his speech, he made knockabout jokes, seeking giggles from those behind him. He talked of his wish to make speeches in defence of his constituents, within the rules of order. I may be doing him an injustice, and I will withdraw my remarks if I am wrong, but the Mace, on the Table now, is on one side because he moved it——

Mr. Swain

On a point of order—[Interruption.] This is not an intervention in the hon. Member's speech. I would not lower my dignity to intervene in his speech. During the demonstration this evening the Mace inadvertently got knocked off its brackets. I replaced it. The hon. Member should withdraw his allegation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am not sure to what point of order I am supposed to reply, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for his information. I see the Mace quite safely in position.

Mr. Page rose——

Hon. Members

Withdraw!

Mr. Page

I do not have to withdraw. The hon. Member moved the Mace, as I said. He might have been efficient enough to put it back properly.

The right hon. Lady produced another great act of indignation. It would have been valuable for the country if people had been able to see her when she was speaking in her passionate way and then immediately returning to her seat and relaxing and laughing and joking with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) who used to be her left-hand man, but who retired to the back benches and then came forward again. It would be interesting to know from her— in view of the part that he took in the undemocratic demonstration tonight against the rules of order—whether the hon. Member for Walton is still a member of her Front Bench team.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

On a point of order. I have sat here listening to the hon. Member continually talking about the Mace, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and my right hon. Friend. Is not the Motion concerned with the question whether we should have 30 days or ten days for debate? What can the Mace have to do with that question? What has the hon. Member said up to now that has anything to do with the Amendment? Not one word!

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am prepared to allow a fairly wide debate on the Amendment. The hon. Member's reference to the Mace I took to be a passing reference. He did not labour the point. I do not think that anything that has been said so far is out of order.

Mr. Page

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your remarks, because we are discussing a procedural Motion. I should think that the position of the Mace was really significant in a parliamentary procedural Motion.

The right hon. Lady, in her previous speech, said that one of the most important aspects why more time was needed for the Bill was the new court procedure and the legal framework of the Bill. It is surprising, in view of that, that neither the right hon. Lady nor any of her hon. Friends who are members of the legal profession, I think I am right in saying, took part in the proceedings on the Courts Bill which was debated on 14th January. That was a Bill with 56——

Mr. Arthur Lewis

On a point of order. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, please show or point out to me how another Bill dealing with another subject can possibly have reference to the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend, in line 5, to leave out "ten" and insert "thirty"? The short point of the discusion is whether it shall or shall not remain ten or thirty. Another Bill cannot possibly have anything to do with that Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must leave it to me to decide when anything is in or out of order. I have said that I was prepared to allow some tolerance, and I have. The last speaker could possibly have been called to order on the same lines by the other side, but no one did so. I think that so far the hon. Gentleman is reasonably in order.

Mr. Lewis

Further to that point of order. You have, either consciously or unconsciously, explained exactly the point that I was making—namely, that, whatever Mr. Speaker did or did not allow, no point of order was raised with him and he allowed whatever he allowed. That is entirely up to Mr. Speaker, and I make no comment. But I am drawing your attention to the fact that we are on a limited Amendment which specifically lays down what we should be discussing. With respect, if you say that you are going to allow the hon. Gentleman to raise all the points which he has been raising in a wide-ranging debate, I hope that you will not show bias to me when I come to speak as you did on a previous occasion.

Hon Members

Oh!

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think that, on reflection, the hon. Member would wish to withdraw the last part of what he said. I ask him to withdraw that last remark.

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Lewis

When I come to speak, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to be able to explain why I think—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—it should be thirty, not ten, I because I have evidence to prove that you showed bias on the occasion of the Committee——

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member knows the rules of the House in cases like this. If the hon. Member feels aggrieved by anything which the Chair has done, there is only one course open to him—to put down a Motion. Meanwhile, I call upon him to withdraw the offensive remark which he made to the Chair, or to resume his seat, at any rate.

Mr. Lewis

I will ask the Leader of the House to look into this, because the evidence is in HANSARD—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—and if he looks into this then I will withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am afraid that that cannot be. The hon. Gentleman has, as I have said, one option open to him—namely, to put down a Motion upon the Paper. The hon. Gentleman must never—nor must any right hon. or hon. Member in this House—make offensive remarks about the Chair. To do so is only to denigrate our House of Commons. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman—I am sure I shall not ask in vain—to expunge that remark from what he said and, if he wishes, to put down a Motion for which, I am sure, the Leader of the House will find time, if necessary.

Mr. Lewis

If I can catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I tried to do on several occasions before, I will deal with this matter on this Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—In view of that, I withdraw.

Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think that I can accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I do not wish to put too fine a point on the exact wording. I accept what he said. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tom Driberg (Barking)

Further to that point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, none of us is aggrieved at your totally impartial Rulings, but would you, for the guidance of the House, be good enough to explain why it is that a five-second reference to Singapore merits a reproof from the Chair, while a long digression from the subject under discussion is permitted?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It is quite a different thing. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) made a speech during which it would have been possible, if the Chair had wished to put a fine point on the tightness of the Motion, to have called him to order, or for hon. Members on the Government side of the House to have pointed it out to the Chair, but they did not do so. I thought it better not to call the hon. Member to order. I know that the House is under some emotional strain this evening, and I know that on these occasions the Chair should give some tolerance to all hon. Members. That being so, I hope that the hon. Member will be prepared to let the matter rest there.

Mr. Tinn

Further to that point of order. I do not wish to challenge your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it appears to many of us on this side of the House that the tolerance allowed by the Chair, which we welcome in a debate such as this, is perhaps being unduly strained when an hon. Member is allowed to speak for more than ten minutes without mentioning the Amendment before the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I hope that the hon. Member for Harrow, West, who has the Floor of the House, having heard all that has been said, will bear it in mind, and that we shall now be able to get on with the debate.

Mr. Page

I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and not to the criticism of my speech by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

There are many reasons why I support the opposition to the Amendment. It is obviously one that needs to be turned down. I give as one reason for rejecting the Amendment the Opposition's management of their case. During the closing stages of our previous debate in Committee the Opposition showed that their ability to manage their case had broken down completely. I am referring to what happened on 19th January, when the Government's Amendment to give managements direct responsibility for the promotion of good industrial relations was replied to, rather surprisingly, by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme).

The hon. Gentleman began his reply by saying, I have been asked to reply for the Oppostlion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1971; Vol. 809, c. 1007.] The hon. Gentleman then said that he was going to recommend all his right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman who is, I think, the Chairman of the Trade Union Group——

Mr. Ted Leadbitter (The Hartlepools)

On a point of order. Hon. Members, particularly from this side of the House, have asked on several occasions that hon. Members who have the Floor should address themselves to the Amendment. In spite of the Chair having asked the hon. Gentleman to take note of the requests that have been made to that effect, he is persisting in addressing the House on a matter of which we are all aware. We are anxious to get on with the Amendment. Would you give a Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on this point?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think that the hon. Member who has the Floor should direct himself more particularly to the terms of the Amendment. I have given him quite a lot of tolerance, and I hope that he will now—I was on the point of asking him to do so—direct himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Page

Everyone who has taken part in the debate has had to explain why more time is needed, or why more time is not needed. I was merely explaining what I consider to be utterly to the point of the argument, the management of the Opposition by the hon. Member who was asked officially to respond to a debate and who had to be bailed out later by the hon. Member for Walton because he was taking a view exactly opposite to the official view. That gives me the impression that the ability of the Opposition to oppose had broken down. I feel therefore that the time of the Committee on that Amendment was wasted.

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who I think is not here, although I gave him warning that I would mention him if I were lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and who was also, I understood, speaking officially for the Opposition, is reported in column 1013—

Mr. Leadbitter

On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly recall that you indicated to the House that you were about to ask the hon. Member to restrict himself to the Amendment. Since that statement, the hon. Member has had the best part of two minutes clarifying why he said what he said, but he is now on the point of continuing to quote from HANSARD on the incident first complained about.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I was under the impression that the hon. Member was just about to mention the Amendment again.

Mr. Page

I thought I had been clear on the point of the Amendment—that more time was necessary—by explaining that more time is not necessary in view of the attitude expressed by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, as reported in column 1013, which shows that if more is given, more time will be wasted. I suspect that when the hon. Member for Bassetlaw speaks, he will waste whatever time is available. I wish to quote from column 1013 of 19th January, when the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said: Yesterday we had a reference by the Minister to filibustering on Amendments, and I wondered whether this was the sort of Amendment he had in mind. We are not trying to help the Government or to improve the Bill. That is not what we are here for." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1971; Vol. 809, c. 1013.] If hon. Members opposite share the view of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, that it is not the duty of the Opposition, when they speak on an Amendment, to try to improve the Bill, I consider that the granting of any extra time would be futile.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

May I begin by apologising to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the few references I made earlier. Now that I have the opportunity to speak, which I failed to get in Committee, I, unlike the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), will speak on this narrow Amendment, without asking the Chair in any way to allow me to go wide of it. Sticking strictly to the rules, I think I can deal both with the Amendment and with the points which I had in mind when I intervened. The narrow point of the Amendment is whether there should be ten days or 30 for the Committee stage, and the question whether the Bill is good or bad is immaterial.

I put down 350 Amendments to the Bill, and some were selected. When I tried to move my Amendments, I saw something that I have not seen before in 26 years in the House—that hon. Members who had not been in the Committee up to that time were called in preference to myself. Seven were called and I was not even called to move my own Amendments——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that he is getting perilously near being critical where criticism is not accepted.

Mr. Lewis

I am not putting it in a critical sense of the Chair. I am stating a fact which is shown in HANSARD, to show that 10 days will not be sufficient. In those two days, the first two Clauses were passed but there was not the usual debate on the Question that they should stand part of the Bill. The Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and the Minister in charge of the Bill admitted that there was no delay or filibustering. I was not called to move my Amendments, while seven other hon. Members were called and other hon. Members with Amendments were called immediately their turn came.

If the Chair was not biased—I accept that the Chair cannot be biased—and if the Chair could not see me, even though, despite some loss of weight, I am very "see-able"——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is wandering towards the Chair once more in his speech. Perhaps he would restrain himself from doing so.

Mr. Lewis

I will wander back a little and explain why I think that if, on two days' debate, I was not called as the sponsor of the Amendments which were debated, 10 days may not be enough. If, after I have been sitting here hour after hour—having been told by the Chair that some of my 350 Amendments would be called—hon. Members on both sides can be called in preference to me, I would think that then 10 days being extended to 30 might give me the chance to move some of my Amendments. So I ask the Leader of the House, who is responsible here, to look into this. I have never known this to happen before; and if we are restricted to 10 days, it will probably happen again. Certainly there will not be time to debate any of my 350 Amendments, whether or not the Chair selects them.

It is clear from the OFFICIAL REPORT that in disposing of the first two Clauses of the Bill my hon. Friends did not indulge in time-wasting. On one Amendment my hon. Friends spoke for 53 minutes and hon. Gentlemen opposite spoke for 62 minutes. If there were filibustering, which there was not, they filibustered more than we did.

The Government Chief Whip had to urge his back benchers to shut up, because of the time they were taking. Eventually he succeeded. If he could not control his supporters on that occasion without difficulty, we are bound to wonder how much of the time that will be allocated to the Bill under the guillotine will be occupied by them. We quickly followed the advice of the Opposition Chief Whip when he said at one stage that we should stop debating an Amendment and move on. In every case that request was complied with. But even with all that co-operation by all those concerned we were still able to deal with only two Clauses. And on some of our Amendments, in order to save time, we never even voted. That being so, it must be apparent that 10 days is not enough time in which to discuss 150 Clauses and 8 Schedules.

Sometimes when his Amendment is not called or he is unable to take part in a discussion, an hon. Member may say, "I am not worried about that, but I will really get cracking on the Clause stand part debate. I will widen that debate". Not so much as a second was taken up in such debate, though with perhaps four speakers from each side making a quite genuine contribution, as much as 40 or 50 minutes would not be considered unreasonable.

Mr. John Fraser

My hon. Friend will recall that we were even more generous than that. There was one occasion when on two Opposition Amendments we could, with the permission of the Chair, have had separate Divisions, but in order to save time they were dealt with together, so saving the time necessary for one complete debate.

Mr. Lewis

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for being so helpful to the Government in pointing out how accommodating we then were. And I mean that, because the Opposition Chief Whip was accused of working more for the Government than for us in trying to get Clause 4. There was a joke going around to the effect that he ought to get the salary that the Government Chief Whip was getting. We all know that when hon. Members make a statement in this House it is accepted as the truth. I am saying—and hon. Members can check on this—that my right hon. Friend was going around saying to my hon. Friends "Please do not speak; do not take part in the debate. I am trying to get Clause 4 of the Bill".

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)

Get on with the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis

I am getting on with it.

Mr. H. J. Delargy (Thurrock)

May I remind my hon. Friend that we were even more generous than that? He has said several times that we got two Clauses in two days. In fact, we got two Clauses in 1½ days. One the first day we began to debate the Industrial Relations Bill at 7.15 p.m. and we stopped at 11.40 p.m.

Mr. Lewis

I am obliged to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Whitelaw

To put the record straight, the hon. Gentleman has perfectly fairly referred to the second day when, following the debate on Dutschke, the debate started at 7.15 p.m., but he will remember that on that occasion we carried on till 6.30 a.m.

Mr. Lewis

This shows how understanding the usual channels are. It is only a matter of one day instead of another; the principle is the same. I accept that it was on the Tuesday and not the Monday, but the point that my hon. Friend made was that we did not discuss the Bill the whole day, even though we sat till 6 a.m. People outside this House might think that we start the Orders of the Day at 3.30 p.m. and then discuss them right through the day and night. But in fact we did not. Therefore, we spent less time on those Amendments than might have been thought.

I was going on to explain that the Opposition Chief Whip was more than accommodating. All hon. Members know that I am not one who can be accused of patting my own Front Bench on the back. That is not my custom. Very rarely can one say that I try to curry favour by saying things in favour of the establishment, or the disestablishment. But I think that my right hon. Friend deserves every bit of praise. Therefore, I am amazed that we have this situation, knowing how he co-operated and went out of his way to do so.

Not that he has been kicked in the pants; if my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) were here, he would use blunter language. I appreciate that we are not discussing the guillotine Motion now; I could not get into that debate, anyway. We are now discussing whether ten or 30 days should be allowed for completing the Committee stage of this Bill. But my right hon. Friend is entitled to be upset and annoyed. He is entitled to say to the Leader of the House, "You have not been fair or reasonable to me personally, let alone how you have treated the House, bearing in mind all my efforts, after trying to keep my troops in order". There could not have been a better brigadier-general, sergeant and corporal rolled into one than my right hon. Friend.

One would have expected them at least to say to him, "Having made the faux pas"—I am putting this seriously— "having made the mistake, we now make this suggestion"— or, to be even fairer, the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip could have said, "You have accused us of being unfair and unreasonable. You have accused us of doing everything wrong. We deny that, but when you talk about the guillotine"——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Chair has not been saying these things, so far as I recall. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would wish to rephrase that and put himself in order.

Mr. Lewis

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but did you not hear me say that the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip could have said, "You have", and so on? I was quoting what they might have said, and I think that that is a normal way of putting it. The Leader of the House or the Government Chief Whip could have said, "You have"—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but that is ordinary parliamentary practice, and, to my knowledge, it has been for the last 26 years.

If one paraphrased what the Chief Whip would say, one would say that the Chief Whip would say—[Laughter.] I am trying to explain that he would have said, "We have had a bit of a disturbance about the guillotine, and we have had a bit of a row about whether we have been fair or reasonable"—though I should not expect the Government Whip or the Leader of the House to admit that he was wrong. Anyway, accepting for the moment that they think they could have said "Even though we still say we are right, even though you, the Opposition Chief Whip, feel that you have a right to be aggrieved and that we have snubbed you, let us nevertheless get together"—I am coming now to the ten or 30 days—"This is what we have in mind: we suggest ten days. How do you feel about that?".

My right hon. Friend is the most easy chap to get on with, he is most accommodating and courteous. [Laughter.] There is nothing laughable in that. It is a straight, honest statement of fact, and all hon. Members know it to be true. My right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip is a very easy, reasonable, courteous, decent sort of chap to get on with. No one could say otherwise. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Who is patting on the back now?".] I am not patting him on the back. I am stating fact, fact which is known to all hon. Members. I am sure that the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House will agree.

I am pointing out that the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary missed the opportunity at that stage. After all the kerfuffle, they could have said to my right hon. Friend, "We have this Timetable Motion in mind. Can we do a deal, even now? What do you have in mind? We say ten days". Obviously, my right hon. Friend would have asked for 30. I should have thought that that would have given the Government an opportunity to show how to get industrial relations going properly. They could have explained to the workers in industry and to the people in the country that, when they talked about getting normal communications going and happy industrial relations established, they knew what they were talking about. "Look here", they could say, "look how we have solved our relations. We were going to insist on ten days; the Opposition wanted 30. We have met and comprised, and"—who knows?— "we have settled for 25". [Laughter.] The Government Chief Whip probably thinks that as usual I have underestimated. It could have been 28. My right hon. Friends are more accommodating than I am. I probably would not have settled for less than 30, with perhaps 28 at the minimum. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip is probably very upset and wonders why he should come here when he is treated in such a shabby manner.

It is said that the Post Office workers should go to arbitration, but what about the Government? Let them try a little bit of arbitration. I do not expect them to come to me or any other Opposition back-benchers, although my union executive and general secretary do discuss matters with the rank and file. It is a pity that the Government will not discuss whether it should be ten or 30 days with me, but I do not complain. But they might go one better and say, "We will discuss this with the Official Opposition and show the country, the Post Office workers and trade unionists as a whole how we shall deal with matters that are in dispute. We shall show the good trade unionists how they should not cause trouble and unrest, because we would not do it." In fact, they have been guilty of the very thing of which they have falsely accused the trade unions.

Even now we could easily get the matter settled by the Leader of the House saying, "Without commitment"—because obviously negotiations mean negotiations— "let us go away now and discuss whether we can get something in the region of what you have in mind. Then the House can go home. We will have a discussion and return and say, 'We have achieved what the Opposition want, or near enough what they want.'"

Then the Government would have two advantages. They would be able to get progress on the Bill and to say to the people, "We have been reasonable and understanding." They would be able to say to the trade union movement, "This is not only what we preach but what we practise, and it is proof of how it is possible to discuss and negotiate." Who knows? We might wake up in the morning and find that the Post Office Board has done the same thing with Mr. Tom Jackson and invited him to sit down at the table and negotiate.

That would do away with many problems. The Leader of the House might find that we do not need even the 30 days, because in discussing things with the Opposition in convivial, off-the-record, free and frank negotiations he might well find himself persuaded that the Bill is not worth proceeding with. Then he could find plenty of time to deal with the other matters that he has in mind, such as cutting prices at a stroke. If we can split the difference between ten and 30 we may be able to assist the Prime Minister to keep his pledge to the electorate to cut prices at a stroke. That is more likely to be achieved through the safeguarding of industrial peace and industrial relations than through this Bill. It is much more important than the question of having either ten or 30 more days because, if prices were reduced at a stroke, it would be welcomed by the trade unions, the employers, the housewives and this House.

I am offering the Government an opportunity to say that they slipped up—well, perhaps I could not expect them to agree to do that, but at any rate I am offering them an opportunity to say that they will take this timetable away and invite my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) to discuss it with them. I have been accused of patting on the back an hon. Friend who is not here now, so I will do it to my right hon. Friend, who is here. We on this side—and I am sure most hon. Members opposite agree—consider my right hon. Friend the most reasonable, most understanding, most accommodating man—[Laughter.]—I do not want any laughter because the last point is even more true—with more knowledge in his little finger about trade union affairs than anyone else in this House has in his whole body, certainly among hon. Members opposite and I think even among hon. Members on this side.

My right hon. Friend has had a lifetime of experience, from the highest to the lowest, in all trade union activities. He is a former member of the T.U.C. General Council. He is a former Chairman of the T.U.C.—or could have been. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh but I am speaking from memory, going back over 30 years. My right hon. Friend took a job in the Government and I am not sure whether he was indeed Chairman of the T.U.C. He certainly could have been had he stayed on. My right hon. Friend is known as the most reasonable and accommodating of men. He is the obvious man to discuss with the Government the opportunity of getting a reasonable period of 30 days instead of ten.

I am supporting the Amendment but I am not sure that even 30 days is enough. If it took two days to deal with two Clauses, then I would want another 70 days for the rest of the Committee stage. Indeed—perhaps my arithmetic is not so good—if the Government think it reasonable to deal, without filibustering, with two Clauses in two days, then as the Bill has 150 Clauses, without counting the Schedules, a total of another 75 days in Committee would be the appropriate figure that I would negotiate. But I am not a trade union leader; nor am I the Leader of the Opposition.

After all, if we could get the usual channels working again in this way, all those hon. Members who wish to do so could go back to Strasbourg. Incidentally, they have all vanished now. They were here earlier. They could then go back to Strasbourg and those who are interested in the Bill could proceed with the Committee stage.

We could then go to our constituents and to the trade union movement and say that we had persuaded even this reactionary Government to get down and negotiate to give us our Amendment. They would then know that, instead of our being limited to an unreasonable ten-day period, we should be able to have a 30-day period for discussion. I could then say to my constituents who are Ford workers, "Don't come out on strike, do not take the law into your own hands"— as they may have been falsely accused of doing on some occasions—"because the Government have listened to reason and have agreed to this extended period to allow workers in industry to put their points of view, through their Members of Parliament."

12.02 a.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

The House will be sorry that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has been overcome by exhaustion before finishing his speech. I am sure that there was a lot more he would have liked to say if only his frame could have sustained him.

I will return to the Amendment, and particularly to the speech of the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). Those Members who heard it may agree that its most remarkable feature was not the way in which she kept insisting that she would be heard when nobody was trying to howl her down, not the way in which she kept trying to erect the edifice of a charge of dictatorship against the Government when no such charge can be sustained, but that she made no reference to the disgraceful and disorderly proceedings that took place between the time my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment was forced to sit down and the time when she herself got up to address the House. Indeed, those of us who had the advantage of being able to watch the proceedings from this side of the House must have been extremely struck at the way in which the Opposition Front Bench showed its embarrassment at what took place, and the way in which they dissociated themselves from the milling mob of Renta-crowd that occupied the Floor of the Chamber.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)

On a point of order. I find things very difficult to understand at this time of night, Mr. Speaker. I should be greatly obliged to you, Sir, if you could explain to me in what way the hon. Gentleman is addressing himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker

I think it is for me to say when I think an hon. Member is out of order. Nothing the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has said is out of order.

Mr. Onslow

I do not wish to try the understanding of the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). It may be for this reason that I am moving to my point more slowly than otherwise, so that he may remain with me.

Mr. Kaufman

Further to that point of order. It is not that I am unable to understand the limited vocabulary in which the hon. Gentleman expresses himself. It is just that I am unable to understand in what way the hon. Gentleman's speech is relevant to this Amendment.

Mr. Speaker

I have ruled that nothing the hon. Member has said has been out of order.

Mr. Onslow

If the hon. Member will bear with me long enough for me to explain myself, I shall be seeking to demonstrate that were the Opposition successful in getting an extra 20 days, as their Amendment seeks, not only would they not be able to make good use of it, but it would be in their own worst interests.

I return to the behaviour of the Opposition Front Bench and the embarrassed silence which it maintained while the hon. Member for Ardwick was otherwise occupied. This parallels the way in which the country as a whole is looking at the behaviour of the Labour Party for the way in which it is approaching our proceedings on the Bill. Where the Opposition Front Bench demonstrates its disapproval of this disorderly and pointless demonstration, so we can see in the country as a whole a growing belief that the Opposition are making fools of themselves, and we in the House who see them and hear them know that this must be the case.

We know that there was no spontaneity in the demonstration. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) was good enough to tell us that everybody knew that there was to be a demonstration at a quarter to ten, and everybody knew that the cue word was "hypocrisy" which was mumbled by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), when those who remembered their lines and had the courage to do so descended to the Floor of the House and displayed their intellectual nudity. This was a disgraceful and pointless proceeding.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I should prefer the hon. Member to look to the future rather than to the past.

Mr. Onslow

So should I prefer, because it was not an occasion of which Parliament has any cause to be proud.

The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn said that there was respect in in the country for the House of Commons and I retort to her that there will be no respect in the country for the proceedings in the House if the Opposition are so foolish as to go on behaving in the way in which they have behaved, and particularly if they have an extra 20 days in which to behave in this foolish way.

The right hon. Lady seemed to want us to be here until 14th May on the Bill; she must be jesting. She cannot have taken time out to consider the effect that another 20 days on this kind of thing means for the standing of the party which one day may have the chance to aspire again to form the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never"] I am trying not to be controversial. Twenty more days watching the hon. Member for West Ham, North tugging at his moorings trying to get in and move some more Amendments will do no good. Twenty more days watching the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the hon. Member for Salford, East getting into a terrible knot as to whether the Opposition are supposed to vote for or against the Amendment which one or other of them is officially moving will do no good. Twenty more days of this pointless behaviour of little demonstrations with muttered imprecations. [Interruption.] I am grateful; does an hon. Member wish to intervene? Twenty more days of interventions from sedentary positions like that: will that do the reputation of the Opposition any good? Will it do Parliament any good?

Hon. Members may reflect that among the advantages of the postal strike, which include the fortunate absence of bills and that kind of thing, is the fact that it gives time to reflect, time, of which hon. Members may not have enough when the House is sitting, to consider the effect of their actions on the reputation of Parliament and the reputation of their party in the country at large. If Labour Members take a little time to think for themselves, how much good it may do them! If they were to have 20 more days in which to expose the shallowness, the hypocrisy, the manoeuvring the overacting, that has characterised their behaviour on the Bill so far, it would do them no good at all.

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)

The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), in a speech which was to a certain extent relevant to the debate, referred to the Amendment which is reported at column 1012 of HANSARD on 19th January. He was reasonable in so referring because he was at that stage being relevant to the Amendment moved tonight by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). What the hon. Member for Harrow, West omitted to point out was that that Amendment was moved not by a member of the Opposition but by one of his hon. Friends, and that of the three speeches made in the debate on that Amendment, two were made by Government speakers and only one by an Opposition speaker.

Just as the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) was anxious not to extend the debate in the interests of the Opposition, I am axious to extend it and anxious that the Government should accept my right hon. Friend's Amendment in the interests of Government back benchers. I have been studying the proceedings of the House so far on the Committee stage of the Bill, and I have been deeply struck by the interest shown by hon. Members opposite.

What has been a remarkable feature of the debate and what makes it so astonishing that the Lord President should have seen fit to bring in a guillotine Motion, with its implication that the Opposition has been wasting time, is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) said, incidentally to his other very relevant remarks, it is Government back benchers who have been using quite rightly—nobody complans about it—their opportunities to debate what they regard as a very important Bill. They have shown its importance not only by participating in the debate at length, as I shall show, I trust, relevant to the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend; but they have also been justifiably exercising their right to move Amendments and to speak upon them at length.

In the Committee stage of the Bill we have had so far proceedings which amount in total to 331 columns of HANSARD. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President has moved a guillotine Motion would lead one to suppose that hon. Members on this side of the House have taken up an over-whelming part of those 331 columns. That is far from being so. Of those 331 columns of HANSARD that the Committee stage has so far taken up, Labour Members have taken only 177 columns, little more than half the proceedings. Right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side, rightfully exercising their rights as back benchers, and speakers from the Front Bench availing themselves, as they should, of the opportunities to explain why they accept or reject Amendments from the Opposition, have taken 103 columns. Recording of the Divisions has taken up 38 columns. Hon. Gentlemen of the Liberal Party have used up 13 columns. Thus we have a situation in which only just over half the time of the debate has been taken up by the Opposition.

It is always the case on a Committee stage that Opposition takes up a higher proportion of time than Government, because Opposition opposes and the Government generally urge their supporters to remain silent.

It is also interesting that so far on the Committee stage, omitting the Liberal Party, 39 hon. Members on this side of the House have participated and 25 hon. Members opposite have participated. Taking the 177 columns of HANSARD taken up by the Opposition and the 103 columns which hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken up, this works out at an average of just over four columns per Member, both on the Opposition side and on the Government side. [An HON. MEMBER: "So what?"] The hon. Gentleman asks "So what?" I am about to explain why this is extremely relevant to the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend, so eloquently supported by my hon. Friends, and which I am seeking to support by providing this statistical evidence.

Was that the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) who intervened from a sedentary position? I have always thought it out of order for the hon. Member to intervene in anything in this House which did not concern handing over the telephones to private enterprise or adding radio to commercial interests. I thought that he entered the House solely for those purposes and that no other topic of any kind was of interest to him. I thought that he sat there ready to receive those who raised these matters and to intervene.

The average speech on this Bill, for Government and Opposition Members, works out at just over four columns, which means that Government Members have, quite rightly, been exercising their right to speak for exactly the same time as have my hon. Friends. They have a point of view; they won the election on a manifesto which included this as well as their promise to bring down prices at a stroke and to abolish S.E.T. in their first Budget.

They gave a good many pledges in that election. One was to bring in an Industrial Relations Bill, but the Bill they have brought in is not the Bill which they promised the country. They did not tell the country that they would introduce a Bill which would place trade unions on licence, like a Facist corporate State. Nevertheless, they promised that they would bring in a Bill on trade unions, and now they wish to address themselves to the Bill promised to their constituents. Looking at the debates that have taken place over these 331 columns and the speeches made by hon. Members, it seems that those 25 hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken have shown that they have relevant things to say.

It is my opinion that the Government, in accepting this Amendment, would be proving that their supporters could show to the country, by their speeches, the importance and relevance of this Bill, which the Secretary of State is always telling us will work slowly but fruitfully. We have had speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I want to hear more. We have had speeches from the "trade union group" opposite—the hon. Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown) and the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby). We want to hear more from them, because they have direct and relevant experience. We want to hear from the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), who has already spoken on this Bill and who represents the proletarians of South Kensington. We want to hear more of what he has to say on behalf of the workers in South Kensington.

There is the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). He has intervened in this debate, and it is right that he should do so and that he should have more time to do so. The right hon. Gentleman is more popular in the country than any of his other 328 colleagues, including the Prime Minister and everyone else on the Front Bench. Therefore he speaks more for the people than does anyone else on his side of the House. In addition, he has opinions about trade unions and their attitudes which strike a chord among trade unions. He has offered to give evidence to the loaded and biassed Wilberforce Court of Inquiry proving that the trade unions do not cause inflation and that it is the monetary supply situation which does. The Chancellor has told the business men of Birmingham that he does not intend doing anything about the monetary supply situation. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has things—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), who is a slavish follower of the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Cannock) rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the hon. Member for Ardwyck (Mr. Kaufman) does not give way, the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) must resume his seat.

Mr. Kaufman

I shall certainly give way later to the hon. Member for Cannock because, since I have referred to him, it is right that he should be able to intervene and put me right if I have made an error. I promise that I shall give way to him when I have finished this point.

The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has things to say about trade unionism with not all of which I agree, but which he has a right to say. He has been sent here by half the people of Wolverhampton. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), who is a trade union-sponsored Member, also has things to say; in fact, it could be said that the two hon. Members for Wolverhampton have, between them, more things to say than any other two Members representing different parts of the same town—always excepting Salford.

Mr. Cormack

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his late decision to give way. He accused me of being a slavish follower of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I want to put him right. I am a member of the Conservative Party, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. We agree on some things and differ on others. I am not a slavish follower of his. I support the Bill entirely. I support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who has so eloquently pioneered the Bill and introduced it. I shall vote on the right side all the time.

Mr. Kaufman

I am sorry that the hon. Member was so ungracious in the way that he referred to my giving way to him. As you have occasion to say many times, Mr. Speaker, when one hon. Member rises to intervene, the hon. Member who has the Floor is not obliged to give way. I gave way as a courtesy to the hon. Member, because I had referred to him. I am glad to hear that he repudiates the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, because there is no doubt that the election campaign which the hon. Member fought in Cannock was a Powellite campaign. If, in the hon. Member's next election campaign, he repudiates his right hon. Friend, he will be defeated. I think that he will be defeated anyhow, because of the boundary changes which his right hon. Friend forced through and for which the hon. Member was compelled to vote.

Mr. Cormack

On a point of order. Is the hon. Member able to make broad comments about an election campaign of which he had no knowledge and to make inaccurate comments about it? Is it in order in this debate?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member has said nothing out of order yet.

Mr. Kaufman

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. In the intervals in my own election campaign I paid particular attention to the hon. Member's election campaign, because I had heard so much about him—and read so much about him in the columns of The Times—which indicated that he was a slavish supporter of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. He has now repudiated his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Cormack

I apologise for taking up the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. Member is inventing quotations. If he can produce them I shall be grateful.

Captain W. Elliot

Further to that point of order. If I catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker, will it be in order for me to discuss the adoption of the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) as a candidate at the last election, and his election campaign?

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman catches my eye and makes a speech, I will rule upon it then. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's point of order was a point of argument, not of order.

Mr. Kaufman

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) for warning me that this may come along. If I happen to go outside the Chamber for a cup of tea, or something like that, if I get thirsty, and I see his name on the annunciator I shall come back.

So we have the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who has already intervened in the debate, and wishes to do so again, and the House, I am sure, would wish to hear him.

Then we have the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott), for whom I have great respect, who has spoken in the debate and wishes to speak on the Bill in Committee. I submit that the hon. Gentleman should have more occasion to speak. We listened to the hon. Gentleman with far greater respect than we do to most hon. Gentlemen opposite, since he has a proud and unsullied record on racialism and would never have to be asked to repudiate his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, because all his actions repudiate the right hon. Gentleman implicitly. Whenever the hon. Member for Paddington, South intervenes in the debate, he does so, by some curious chance, by referring to racial Measures—the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, the Race Relations Act, and other legislation of that type. I should be glad to hear more of the hon. Gentleman relating those issues, which he has raised very well and in order, to the issues which we have to debate.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

If I understand my hon. Friend, he is saying that he would like to hear various right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite taking part in the Committee stage of the Bill. Is my hon. Friend therefore suggesting that he supports 30 days as against ten to allow them to speak? If so, my hon. Friend has not understood the point which I made—namely, that 30 days is not sufficient for all the points which we on this side want to put forward. If, with his usual generosity, my hon. Friend is seeking to extend the time so that hon. Gentlemen opposite can also take part, surely 30 days are not sufficient; we shall need 50 days.

Mr. Kaufman

My hon. Friend has been in this House for a very long time and his experience of what is and what is not in order is far greater than mine. I have been speaking in support of "thirty" because I was under the impression that that was all I could speak on. Therefore, I have been doing that. Obviously, the longer we have for the Committee stage the better. We should then have a greater opportunity of hearing many hon. Gentlemen, and hon. Ladies, whom we would wish to hear.

I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) is not here, because it is always a pleasure to look across at her. The hon. Lady has spoken on the Bill, and it is important that she and other hon. Ladies opposite should have further opportunities to speak on the Bill in Committee. The hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham has expressed the women's point of view, and we are always told that not only strikers' views but strikers' wives' views are important in industrial disputes. The hon. Lady has shown, by her presence here and by her interventions in the Committee stage last week, that she has something relevant, important and interesting to contribute. It would be sad if she were to be squeezed out because hon. Gentlemen on both sides took up the time.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) has shown that he has a deep interest in industrial relations. In this House, in the country, and in the correspondence columns of The Times, the hon. Gentleman has said that he wants an incomes policy, and he is always calling upon the Government for an incomes policy. One of the submissions which has been made from this side is that if the Government had created conditions in which the trade unions were ready to enter into a voluntary incomes policy there would have been no need, on the Government's criteria, for the Bill to be brought forward. The contribution of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford would be extremely relevant to our debates.

There is yet another hon. Member who has participated a great deal in the debates on this Bill and who, we feel sure, has more to say. I am thinking of the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster). He was given the duty, which with his great distinction as a lawyer, he has been fulfilling more than adequately, of inquiring into scientology. The hon. and learned Gentleman has shown, therefore, that he has the ability, knowledge and perception to inquire into practices that are restrictive, and are the kind of practices which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite say they wish to abolish by the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman, from his experience of conducting this inquiry, has a great deal to say, and that is why it is important that both sides of the House should have more time in which to contribute to these debates.

I do not wish to weary the House. The last thing that I wish to do—and I am sure that, you, Mr. Speaker, would warn me if I were in the slightest danger of so doing—is to indulge in tedious or otiose repetition, but there are many other hon. Gentlemen opposite who have shown by their readiness to intervene in these debates that they have something of importance and of relevance to contribute. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite, and not only the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, are eloquent as well as knowledgeable. There are others on the benches opposite who have come along and taken part in these debates, and it seems to me that they should have greater opportunties to take part in our debates again.

The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton, who has just intervened, has taken part in these debates. I wish to listen to him talking about many things. I wish to hear his experience of matters involved in the Bill. It is only right that the Government should provide more time to enable that to happen.

I think, next, of the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland), who proposed the Amendment to which the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) referred. He introduced a relevant and interesting Amendment, and I cannot——

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I want to be helpful to my hon. Friend, just as he wants to be helpful to the House, but I am surprised that he is going out of his way to be helpful and accommodating to the Tories. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have mentioned the Liberals, who are supposed to be the great champions of freedom and democracy but who, as always, are conspicuous by their absence. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would want to say something on their behalf, rather than on behalf of the Tories. Perhaps my hon. Friend would give us his views on that.

Mr. Kaufman

I do not wish to be provoked by my hon. Friend. I have a great respect for the Liberal Party. Indeed, ever since my first day in the House I have sat near the Liberal Members in order to be inspired by them. It may be that before long it will be necessary for me to refer to the kind of thing that they would wish to say if they were given the extra time. So far they have been extremely self-controlled and have taken up only 13 columns of the 331 columns devoted to our Committee proceedings. They have far more to say, and it seems to me that they should have the right to say it. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North will regard this as weakness on my part, but I am far more interested in what the Members of the Conservative Party have to say, because they are responsible for the Bill, and they have their own views to put forward.

The hon. Member for Carlton moved the Amendment referred to by the hon. Member for Harrow, West. Having moved one Amendment, why should he not have the opportunity to move further Amendments? Why should he not have the opportunity to speak to other Amendments proposed by either side of the House? It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman should have the right to do that, and I am ready to champion him. I do not always detest what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am ready to champion what he says whether I detest it or not.

There is the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). I am sorry that he is not in the House, but perhaps he, unlike the hon. Member for Cannock, would not repudiate the views of his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West were he to be asked to do so. The hon. Member for Yarmouth can speak, like the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food—although it would not be appropriate for him to take part, as the Minister of another Department—as an East Anglian coast Member, on behalf of fishery Members. It is not only my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) who does that, although he is sponsored by the National Union of Seamen. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), whose constituency I had the pleasure of visiting some time ago, is an expert on these matters and would be glad if the hon. Member for Yarmouth would speak on his behalf. I am glad to see him present. I have had great pleasure in listening to him. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hendon, North is intervening again, but I am not saying anything about commercial radio. I have not even spoken about handing over the telephones to private enterprise, but he will keep on intervening. He should remember that these things are nothing to do with him. He was not sent here to deal with this, but with handing over the telephones to private enterprise.

The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) has spoken with knowledge on these matters, and he is a person, if I may say so, to whom the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) should show even greater respect, for the hon. Member for Peterborough has shown his powers of persuasion by, in four years, increasing his majority from three to several thousands. An hon. Gentleman who has such powers of persuasion should be able to use them on us to see whether he can get us to stop opposing the Bill. The hon. Member for Ipswich, whose majority is only 13, has a great deal to learn from his hon. Friend. Just as we look forward to listening to the hon. Member for Peterborough—and I wish him to have much more time—so the hon. Member for Ipswich could benefit by learning how to increase his majority from 13 to a larger figure, by using such powers of persuasion. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Coombs) has a majority only a little larger, and he, too, could learn how to speak on these matters.

I have had great pleasure in listening, on his occasional visits, to the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) and I am fascinated whenever I hear him, because he is an agreeable and persuasive hon. and learned Member. I wish to hear more from him. I am always ready to be persuaded, and I am not biased. I do not always do what my Whips tell me. If the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood were to have greater opportunities, it might be that he would be able to persuade me to abandon my opposition to some of the more contentious parts of the Bill.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip—Northwood might, if the ten days were extended, perhaps try to extend the Bill to include the legal profession among those covered by it? Surely that would not be in the interests of the country—or would it?

Mr. Kaufman

I do not understand legal matters in any way and that is one reason why I wish to listen to the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip—Northwood, because he made an interesting speech in the debate on judges' salaries a little while ago. He did not quite persuade me on that occasion and, in the end, I had to go into the Lobby and vote against his view, but I wish to listen to him and I might be persuaded.

There is the hon. Member for Horn-castle (Mr. Tapsell), with whom I have had long acquaintance and whose views I respect on a large number of matters. Like his hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South, he has admirable views on the racial question, for example. With all his experience in Africa and in banking, he has much to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Tapsell

Since the hon. Member has referred to me, perhaps I might take advantage of his suggestion that I should intervene. Does he accept that his speech in itself provides incontrovertible reasons for the introduction of the Timetable Motion?

Mr. Kaufman

I have known—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—I would not dream of not answering the hon. Member, for whom I have great respect. I have known him for some time, and I am surprised that he should make so inapposite and irrelevant a remark. But there is no guillotine on the guillotine Motion, and such a procedure would not cut short individual speeches—only the whole debate.

I have referred to my hon. Friends the two Members for Salford, but that is not the only city whose Members are interested in the Bill. The two hon. Members for Ilford have both spoken in this debate——

Mr. A. E. Cooper (Ilford, South)

I have not so far spoken in the debate.

Mr. Kaufman

I would not wish to misrepresent the hon. Member, but perhaps he misunderstood me. I did not mean that he had spoken in this debate—only that he had spoken in Committee on the Bill. Going through HANSARD to prepare myself adequately for the debate, I found that both he and his hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) had interesting things to say. I have listened to the hon. Member for Ilford, North with a great deal of profit. I have heard what he said about the views of his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, and have listened to him with a great deal of approval.

I do not wish to run the gamut of all hon. Members opposite who have spoken, but if there is not to be time for Government back benchers to speak in this debate, it is all the more important to allow time for the Front Bench. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary have spoken, but we have not yet heard from the Minister of State on the Committee stage. The House may wish to hear him. The Solicitor-General too, like the Secretary of State, has rightly exercised his right to speak at length. While hon. Gentlemen opposite may wish to restrain themselves because of the guillotine, it would be wrong if the Front Bench spokesmen opposite did not speak at reasonable length.

I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted, because that would ensure that Ministers at least had time to give us their reasons for the Bill.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Whitelaw

The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) put an important case forward for the Amendment, which she moved in difficult circumstances. I will deal with the Amendment shortly. First, however, I will refer to some of the other speeches that have been made.

Mr. Thin

On a point of order. Does the intervention of the Leader of the House at this stage mean that the debate on the Amendment is being wound up? I ask that because several of us have important points still to make.

Mr. Speaker

I called the right hon. Gentleman to make a speech.

Mr. Whitelaw

To deal with the last speech first, the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) had a great deal to do with research in his past career, and no doubt it was research for others. On this occasion he applied his experience of research with equal skill to his own speech, and while I cannot pretend that I entirely enjoyed all of it, because obviously we want to get on, nevertheless I admired the skill with which he put it together.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) pointed out that ten days was sufficient to save the Opposition from themselves. Much the same point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page). The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), who I recognise is absolutely sincere in his work on behalf of his constituents and the N.U.M., was very rude about me. I do not resent that. Everyone is entitled to be rude about me, and I accept it. As I have also been accused recently of being arrogant, I assure hon. Members that I take a great deal to heart of what is said about me, often because people may not realise that I am quite a sensitive human being. However, I understood the hon. Gentleman to put it in his usual friendly way, so I took no offence from it.

The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), having complained about not getting into the debates earlier, this time, when he had his opportunity, took advantage of his right and was loud in his praise of the Opposition Chief Whip. Having some affinity with that job, I am always delighted when any hon. Member praises the work of his Chief Whip. I could agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, though I have regretted that there should have been any misunderstanding between the Opposition Chief Whip and myself over the events of the last few days because in the past, for a considerable period, we have worked well together. I regret that on this occasion there has been a misunderstanding.

I turn now to the right hon. Lady's Amendment and to the case she put forward. It has to be accepted that there is no meeting of minds on the subject of the ten days or 30 days. The ten days, as I have said, I regard as a longer period—Finance Bills apart—than has been given to any Committee stage on the Floor of the House since the war. I believe that it is a very reasonable amount of time for the Committee stage. But there is little meeting of minds between that ten days and the 30 days proposed by the right hon. Lady.

If the 30 days were to be granted, it would be two-thirds of the total legislative time now available to the Government in the Session. Already, under the proposed timetable Motion, the Government are giving one-third of their whole legislative time in this Session——

Mr. Clinton Davis (Hackney, Central)

The right hon. Gentleman complains constantly about lack of Government time, but why did we have such an extended Summer Recess? We had as much as 13½ weeks.

Mr. Whitelaw

The Summer Recess was very little longer than the normal Summer Recess, and the Christmas Recess was deliberately shortened to be one of the shortest in modern times, because I had in mind the importance of the Bill and the time necessary for it and other Measures.

Perhaps I should explain now what the grant of 30 days would mean in regard to other business. We have in the period ahead, inevitably, the private Members' time already allocated. We have two days on the defence White Paper, and four days on defence Supply. We then have the normal Supply days available to the Opposition, which they naturally like to have at the rate of approximately one per week. We have the spring Civil Supply—two days.

So if the 30 days were granted in addition to all the other inevitable business—including the Budget, and the debate on the Budget which must come within that period—there would be no time at all for other legislation of any sort. There would be no time at all for debate on the expenditure White Paper; no time at all for debate on foreign affairs; no time at all for debating the Roskill Commission Report; indeed, no time at all for many of the other Measures for which on Thursdays on Business I am constantly asked to give time.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

But would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he is making out a very good case of rank bad management by the Leader of the House? Surely the whole point of bringing for-ward a Bill of this size is to plan to fit it into parliamentary time. It is no excuse for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "We have brought forward the Bill. Goodness, we have no time for it, so we must have a guillotine." This is an admission of sheer bad management by the Government.

Mr. Whitelaw

That is not the case I am making. I am pointing out the implications of the right hon. Lady's proposal of 30 days for the Committee stage. I am making it perfectly clear that, for the reasons I have outlined, I could not possibly accept as much as 30 days, because to do so would rule out all the other debates and legislation which many hon. Members in all parts of the House consider very important.

Therefore, I believe that it is right and reasonable to have offered, as the Government have, ten days more, following 20 hours already of debate in Committee. Within that time my right hon. Friend will be most anxious, through the Business Committee which will be set up if the Motions are passed, to see that those Clauses to which the Opposition attach importance are given as much priority as possible, and every chance of debate. We shall be ready to meet the Opposition on all these matters to the very best of our ability. But I must say, for the reasons that I have given, that I am afraid that a period of 30 days is quite impossible.

In response to the hon. Gentleman, I believe that as I have already said, Finance Bills apart, ten days being easily the longest Committee stage on the Floor of the House since the war, it fits in with the rest of the Government's legislative programme, and that is why I have proposed this Motion. That is why I believe that it is reasonable, and it is why I must ask the House to reject the right hon. Lady's Amendment and to support the proposition that we should have ten days in the Committee stage.

Mrs. Castle

Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he answer two questions? He keeps saying that it is the longest time of any Committee stage on the Floor of the House since the war. Will he not admit that he is not talking about length of time pro rata to the length of the Bill, and that therefore his argument is totally misleading? Secondly, when he says that it would be impossible to give 30 days because of all the other things that have to be discussed, is it not a fact that at two days a week, 30 days would only take us to 14th May? When I was putting my Transport Bill before the House we were willing to carry on the Committee stage debates to the end of May and we found that perfectly compatible with all the other matters which had to be dealt with in the House.

Mr. Whitelaw

The right hon. Lady's Transport Bill was in Standing Committee, which is a very different matter from a Committee on the Floor of the House. As for my point about the longest Committee stage, Finance Bills apart, on the Floor of the House since the war, it is simply a fact. I am prepared to accept the right hon. Lady's point about pro rata for Clauses. I am merely stating the actual fact that I believe that, Finance Bills apart, ten days being by far the longest Committee stage on the Floor of the House since the war, that is a reasonable time in which this Bill can be debated, and, as I have said, we shall be careful to work with the Opposition to

ensure that the important Clauses are given priority.

Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire)

Will the Leader of the House tell us whether, when the Labour Party approached him through the usual channels and asked for this Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House, he informed our Whips that it would be taken on the Floor of the House but that this meant an early guillotine? Will he say whether or not at that time he told the Labour Party of the possibility of an early guillotine?

Mr. Whitelaw

I have nothing to add to the statement which was made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip last week. Both the Government and Opposition Chief Whips have made statements. It is much better for me to leave it there and to say no more. I was most cautious in the words that I used in the House last Thursday, in order to preserve the confidentiality of the usual channels. Since then statements have been made. I quite accept them. I do not think that it would be right for me to add to them.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Pym) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 262.

Division No. 68.]	AYES	[12.58 a.m.
Adley, Robert	Brewis, John	Crouch, David
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Brinton, Sir Tatton	Curran, Charles
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Dalkeith, Earl of
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian	Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Davies, John (Knutsford)
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)	Bruce-Gardyne, J.	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Astor, John	Bryan, Paul	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Atkins, Humphrey	Buchanan-Smith, Allck(Angus,N&M)	Dean, Paul
Awdry, Daniel	Buck, Antony	Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Bullus, Sir Eric	Digby, Simon Wingfield
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Burden, F. A.	Dixon, Piers
Balniel, Lord	Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn)	Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Batsford, Brian	Carlisle, Mark	Drayson, G. B.
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Bell, Ronald	Channon, Paul	Dykes, Hugh
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Chapman, Sydney	Eden, Sir John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Benyon, W.	Churchill, W. S.	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Biffen, John	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Emery, Peter
Biggs-Davison, John	Clegg, Walter	Farr, John
Blaker, Peter	Cockeram, Eric	Fell, Anthony
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	Cooke, Robert	Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Body, Richard	Coombs, Derek	Fidler, Michael
Boscawen, Robert	Cooper, A. E.	Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Bossom, Sir Clive	Cordle, John	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Bowden, Andrew	Cormack, Patrick	Fookes, Miss Janet
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Costain, A. P.	Fortescue, Tim
Braine, Bernard	Critchley, Julian	Foster, Sir John
Fowler, Norman	Le Marchant, Spencer	Ridsdale, Julian
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Fry, Peter	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.	Longden, Gilbert	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Gibson-Watt, David	Loveridge, John	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	MacArthur, Ian	Rost, Peter
Glyn, Dr. Alan	McCrindle, R. A.	Royle, Anthony
Goodhart, Philip	McLaren, Martin	Russell, Sir Ronald
Goodhew, Victor	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Gorst, John	McMaster, Stanley	Scott, Nicholas
Gower, Raymond	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Sharples, Richard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Gray, Hamish	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)	Shelton, William (Clapham)
Green, Alan	Maddan, Martin	Simeons, Charles
Grieve, Percy	Madel, David	Sinclair, Sir George
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Maginnis, John E.	Skeet, T. H. H.
Grylls, Michael	Marten, Neil	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Gummer, Selwyn	Mather, Carol	Soref, Harold
Gurden, Harold	Maude, Angus	Speed, Keith
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald	Spence, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Mawby, Ray	Sproat, Iain
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Stainton, Keith
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Stanbrook, Ivor
Hannam, John (Exeter)	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Stewart-Smith, D. C. (Belper)
Harrison, Brian (Malden)	Miscampbell, Norman	Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Haselhurst, Alan	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Stokes, John
Hastings, Stephen	Moate, Roger	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Havers, Michael	Molyneaux, James	Sutcliffe, John
Hawkins, Paul	Money, Ernle	Tapsell, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Heseltine, Michael	Monro, Hector	Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Hicks Robert	Montgomery, Fergus	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Higgins, Terence L.	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Hiley, Joseph	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	Tebbit, Norman
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Temple, John M.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)	Mudd, David	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Holland, Philip	Murton, Oscar	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Holt, Miss Mary	Neave, Airey	Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Hordern, Peter	Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Hornby, Richard	Normanton, Tom	Tilney, John
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Nott, John	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)	Onslow, Cranley	Trew, Peter
Howell, David (Guildford)	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally	Tugendhat, Christopher
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Hunt, John	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Iremonger, T. L.	Page, John (Harrow, W.)	Vickers, Dame Joan
James, David	Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)	Waddington, David
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Peel, John	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Jessel, Toby	Percival, Ian	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Peyton, Rt. Hn. John	Wall, Patrick
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Walters, Dennis
Jopling, Michael	Pink, R. Bonner	Ward, Dame Irene
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Pounder, Rafton	Warren, Kenneth
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch	Weatherill, Bernard
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Kershaw, Anthony	Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.	White, Roger (Gravesend)
Kilfedder, James	Proudfoot, Wilfred	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Kimball, Marcus	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis	Wiggin, Jerry
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Quennell, Miss J.M.	Wilkinson, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Raison, Timothy	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Kinsey, J. R.	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kirk, Peter	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter	Woodnutt, Mark
Kitson, Timothy	Redmond, Robert	Worsley, Marcus
Knight, Mrs. Jill	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Knox, David	Rees, Peter (Dover)	Younger, Hn. George
Lambton, Antony	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Lane, David	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Mr. Reginald Eyre and
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas	Mr. Jasper More.
NOES
Abse, Leo	Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Bishop, E. S.
Albu, Austen	Barnes, Michael	Blenkinsop, Arthur
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Barnett, Joel	Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Alldritt, Walter	Baxter, William	Booth, Albert
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Beaney, Alan	Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Armstrong Ernest	Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Ashton, Joe	Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Bradley, Tom
Atkinson, Norman	Bidwell, Sydney	Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	Oram, Bert
Brown,Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Heffer, Eric S.	Orbach, Maurice
Buchan, Norman	Hilton, W. S.	Orme, Stanley
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Horam, John	Oswald, Thomas
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Padley, Walter
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire,W.)	Huckfield, Leslie	Palmer, Arthur
Cant, R. B.	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Carmichael, Neil	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Pavitt, Laurie
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Hunter, Adam	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Janner, Greville	Pendry, Tom
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Pentland, Norman
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)	Perry, Ernest G.
Cohen, Stanley	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Coleman, Donald	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Prescott, John
Concannon, J. D.	John, Brynmor	Price, William (Rugby)
Conlan, Bernard	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Probert, Arthur
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Rankin, John
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)	Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Crawshaw, Richard
Cronin, John	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)	Richard, Ivor
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)	Jones,Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Dalyell, Tam	Kaufman, Gerald	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George	Kelley, Richard	Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n & R'dnor)
Davidson, Arthur	Kerr, Russell	Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Kinnock, Neil	Roper, John
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Lambie, David	Rose, Paul B.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Lamond, James	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Latham, Arthur	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Deakins, Eric	Lawson, George	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Leadbitter, Ted	Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Delargy, H. J.	Leonard, Dick	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Lester, Miss Joan	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Dempsey, James	Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Devlin, Miss Bernadette	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Sillars, James
Doig, Peter	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Silverman, Julius
Dormand, J. D.	Lipton, Marcus	Skinner, Dennis
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Loughlin, Charles	Small, William
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Driberg, Tom	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Spearing, Nigel
Duffy, A. E. P.	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Spriggs, Leslie
Dunn, James A.	McBride Neil	Stallard, A. W.
Dunnett, Jack	McCartney, Hugh	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Eadie, Alex	McElhone, Frank	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Edelman, Maurice	McGuire, Michael	Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Mackenzie, Gregor	Strang, Gavin
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Mackie, John	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Ellis, Tom	Mackintosh, John P.	Summerskiil, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Evans, Fred	Maclennan, Robert	Swain, Thomas
Fernyhough, E.	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Taverne, Dick
Fisher, Mrs.Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	MacPherson, Malcolm	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Thompson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Tomney, Frank
Foley, Maurice	Marks, Kenneth	Torney, Thomas
Foot, Michael	Marquand, David	Urwin, T. W.
Ford, Ben	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	Varley, Eric G.
Forrester, John	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Wainwright, Edwin
Fraser, John (Norwood)	Mayhew, Christopher	Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Freeson, Reginald	Meacher, Michael	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Galpern, Sir Myer	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Wallace, George
Garrett, W. E.	Mendelson, John	Watkins, David
Gilbert, Dr. John	Mikardo, Ian	Weitzman, David
Ginsburg, David	Millan, Bruce	Wellbeloved, James
Golding, John	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Gordon Walker, Rt Hn. P. C.
Gourlay, Harry	Milne, Edward (Blyth)	White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)
Grant, George (Morpeth)	Molloy, William	Whitehead, Phillip
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Whitlock, William
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Moyle, Roland	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	Murray, Ronald King
Hardy, Peter	Ogden, Eric	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	O'Halloran, Michael	Mr. Joseph Harper and
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	O'Malley, Brian	Mr. William Hamling.

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

Division No. 69.]	AYES	[1.12 a.m.
Abse, Leo	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Albu, Austen	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	McNamara, J. Kevin
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	MacPherson, Malcolm
Alldritt, Walter	Foley, Maurice	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Foot, Michael	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Armstrong, Ernest	Ford, Ben	Marks, Kenneth
Ashton, Joe	Forrester, John	Marquand, David
Atkinson, Norman	Fraser, John (Norwood)	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Freeson, Reginald	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Barnes, Michael	Galpern, Sir Myer	Mayhew, Christopher
Barnett, Joel	Garrett, W. E.	Meacher, Michael
Baxter, William	Gilbert, Dr. John	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Beaney, Alan	Ginsburg, David	Mendelson, John
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Golding, John	Mikardo, Ian
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Millan, Bruce
Bidwell, Sydney	Gourlay, Harry	Miller, Dr. M. S.
Bishop, E. S.	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Molloy, William
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Booth, Albert	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Bradley, Tom	Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	Moyle, Roland
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)	Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Hardy, Peter	Murray, Ronald King
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Ogden, Eric
Buchan, Norman	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	O'Halloran, Michael
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	O'Malley, Brian
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Heffer, Eric S.	Oram, Bert
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Hilton, W. S.	Orbach, Maurice
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Horam, John	Orme, Stanley
Cant, R. B.	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Oswald, Thomas
Carmichael, Neil	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)	Huckfield, Leslie	Padley, Walter
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Palmer, Arthur
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Clark, David (Coins Valley)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Hunter, Adam	Pavitt, Laurie
Cohen, Stanley	Janner, Greville	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Coleman, Donald	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Pendry, Tom
Concannon, J. D.	Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)	Pentland, Norman
Conlan, Bernard	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Perry, Ernest G.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	John, Brynmor	Prescott, John
Crawshaw, Richard	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Price, William (Rugby)
Cronin, John	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Probert, Arthur
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)	Rankin, John
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Jones, Barry (Flint. E.)	Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)	Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Dalyell, Tam	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Richard, Ivor
Darling, Rt Hn. George	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Davidson, Arthur	Kaufman, Gerald	Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Kelley, Richard	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Kerr, Russell	Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Kinnock, Neil	Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Lambie, David	Roper, John
Deakins, Eric	Lamond, James	Rose, Paul B.
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Latham, Arthur	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Delargy, H. J.	Lawson, George	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Leadbitter, Ted	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Dempsey, James	Leonard, Dick	Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Devlin, Miss Bernadette	Lestor, Miss Joan	Short,Mrs.Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Doig, Peter	Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Dormand, J. D.	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Sillars, James
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Lipton, Marcus	Silverman, Julius
Driberg, Tom	Loughlin, Charles	Skinner, Dennis
Duffy, A. E. P.	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Small, William
Dunn, James A.	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Dunnett, Jack	Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson	Spearing, Nigel
Eadie, Alex	McBride, Neil	Spriggs, Leslie
Edelman, Maurice	McCartney, Hugh	Stallard, A. W.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	McElthone, Frank	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	McGuire, Michael	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Ellis, Tom	Mackenzie, Gregor	Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Evans, Fred	Mackie, John	Strang, Gavin
Fernyhough, E.	Mackintosh, John P.	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Fisher, Mrs,Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)	Maclennan, Robert	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Swain, Thomas	Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Taverne, Dick	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)	Wallace, George	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)	Watkins, David	Wison, Alexander (Hamilton)
Thomson, Rt, Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)	Weitzman, David	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Tomney, Frank	Wellbeloved, James	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Torney, Tom	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Urwin, T. W.	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Varley, Eric G.	Whitehead, Phillip	Mr. Joseph Harper and
Wainwright, Edwin	Whitlock, William	Mr. William Hamling.
NOES
Adley, Robert	du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Dykes, Hugh	Kaberry, Sir Donald
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Eden, Sir John	Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Kershaw, Anthony
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Kilfedder, James
Astor, John	Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)	Kimball, Marcus
Atkins, Humphrey	Emery, Peter	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Awdry, Daniel	Farr, John	King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Fell, Anthony	Kinsey, J. R.
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Kirk, Peter
Balniel, Lord	Fidler, Michael	Kitson, Timothy
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	Knight, Mrs. Jill
Batsford, Brian	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Knox, David
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Fookes, Miss Janet	Lambton, Antony
Bell, Ronald	Fortescue, Tim	Lane, David
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Foster, Sir John	Langford-Holt, Sir John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Fowler, Norman	Legge-Bourke, Sir Henry
Benyon, W.	Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)	Le Merchant, Spencer
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Fry, Peter	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Bitten, John	Galbraith, Hn. T. G.	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Biggs-Davison, John	Gibson-Watt, David	Longden, Gilbert
Blaker, Peter	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Loveridge, John
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	McAdden, Sir Stephen
Body, Richard	Glyn, Dr. Alan	MacArthur, Ian
Boscawen, Robert	Goodhart, Philip	McCrindle, R. A.
Bossom, Sir Clive	Goodhew, Victor	McLaren, Martin
Bowden, Andrew	Gorst, John	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Gower, Raymond	McMaster, Stanley
Braine, Bernard	Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Brewis, John	Gray, Hamish	McNair-Wilson, Michael
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Green, Alan	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Grieve, Percy	Maddan, Martin
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Madel, David
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Grylls, Michael	Maginnis, John E.
Bryan, Paul	Gummer, Selwyn	Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)	Gurden, Harold	Marten, Neil
Buck, Antony	Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	Mather, Carol
Bullus, Sir Eric	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Maude, Angus
Burden, F. A.	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Mawby, Ray
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn)	Hannam, John (Exeter)	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Carlisle, Mark	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Channon, Paul	Haselhurst, Alan	Miscampbell, Norman
Chapman, Sydney	Hastings, Stephen	Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	Havers, Michael	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Churchill, W. S.	Hawkins, Paul	Moate, Roger
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Hayhoe, Barney	Molyneaux, James
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Heseltine, Michael	Money, Ernle
Clegg, Walter	Hicks, Robert	Monks, Mrs. Connie
Cockeram, Eric	Higgins, Terence L.	Monro, Hector
Cooke, Robert	Hiley, Joseph	Montgomery, Fergus
Coombs, Derek	Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Cooper, A. E.	Hill, James (Southampton, Test)	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Cordle, John	Holland, Phillip	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Cormack, Patrick	Holt, Miss Mary	Mudd, David
Costain, A. P.	Hordern, Peter	Murton, Oscar
Critchley, Julian	Hornby, Richard	Neave, Airey
Crouch, David	Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Nicholls, Sir Harmer
Curran, Charles	Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)	Normanton, Tom
Dalkeith, Earl of	Howell, David (Guildford)	Nott, John
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Onslow, Cranley
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Hunt, John	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Dean, Paul	Iremonger, T. L.	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Deedes, Rt. Hn, W. F.	James, David	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Dixon, Piers	Jessel, Toby	Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Peel, John
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn, Sir Alec	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Percival, Ian
Drayson, G. B.	Jopling, Michael	Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Pike, Miss Mervyn	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Pink, R. Bonner	Shelton, William (Clapham)	Trew, Peter
Pounder, Rafton	Simeons, Charles	Tugendhat, Christopher
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch	Sinclair, Sir George	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Price, David (Eastleigh)	Skeet, T. H. H.	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Proudfoot, Wilfred	Soref, Harold	Vickers, Dame Joan
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis	Speed, Keith	Waddington, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.	Spence, John	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Raison, Timothy	Sproat, Iain	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James	Stainton, Keith	Wall, Patrick
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter	Stanbrook, Ivor	Walters, Dennis
Redmond, Robert	Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)	Ward, Dame Irene
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)	Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)	Warren, Kenneth
Rees, Peter (Dover)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.	Weatherill, Bernard
Rees-Davis, W. R.	Stokes, John	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom	White, Roger (Gravesend)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Sutcliffe, John	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas	Tapsell, Peter	Wiggin, Jerry
Ridsdale, Jullan	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)	Wilkinson, John
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey	Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)	Woodnutt, Mark
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)		Worsley, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Tebbit, Norman	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Rost, Peter	Temple, John M.	Younger, Hn. George
Boyle, Anthony	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Russell, Sir Ronald	Thomas, John Stradling (Monomouth)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
St. John-Stevas, Norman	Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)	Mr. Reginald Eyre and
Scott, Nicholas	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)	Mr. Jasper More.
Sharples, Richard	Tilney, John

1.23 a.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)

I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned. We are now in the still watches of the night, and this is a suitable moment to reflect where we are. We are in a state of deadlock, because the Leader of the House gave a disappointing reply to our Amendment, and this is the worst possible beginning to the further stages of work in Committee. How can we go on day after day in this state of acute controversy?

What we are asking for is time, more time. Whatever the allocation of time, it is bound to be arbitrary, whether ten or twenty, or any number of days. But this is a matter on which some attempt should be made to reach agreement, or at least some arrangement less objectionable than that which the Government propose. Much of this acrimony could have been saved had there been proper consultation, and I heard with regret the use by the Leader of the House a few moments ago of the word "misunderstanding." There was no misunderstanding. There was a failure to consult, and that is the only way to put it. We were not consulted about a timetable Motion, nor informed that such a Motion was contemplated. This has caused deep resentment. The way in which the matter has been handled has caused as much anger on these benches as has the proposed limitation of time for debate.

I must refer again to the cardinal sin in the whole tragic affair. No attempt appears to have been made by the Leader of the House or the Patronage Secretary to take the Opposition into their confidence and to ask for help or at least comment on what was proposed. The degree of mutual trust built up within the usual channels has been of great value to both sides of the House and has facilitated our work. But it has now been temporarily destroyed.

Why did the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip bring their reputations crashing down through failure to consult the Opposition about the Motion? It is no good saying that it has always been done this way or that the Labour Government did it this way. The present Government asked for election on the ground that it would do better. The "Better Tomorrow", surely, was intended in part for the House of Commons. If things have always been done in an unsatisfactory way, it is up to the Government to show they can bring about some improvement.

Parliamentary procedure is evolving all the time. We very often rely on precedent. Precedents should not be a drag; they should be a spur for improved procedures. I sometimes think of the House when I recall what the Frenchman said about the Civil Service: Precedent is to the Civil Service what brains are to man. That applies to some extent to the House. We want time to persuade and convince the Government and the people that the Government are on the wrong track. In other words, we want the opportunity which seemed to be welcomed by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith), in a speech he made on 15th January at Leamington Spa. He referred to the forthcoming start of the crucial stage of the Bill and said: As you know, this is the stage when the Bill comes under detailed Parliamentary scrutiny. And it is, of course, to be taken on the floor of the House of Commons instead of in a small committee upstairs. This means that the detailed examination of our legislation will attract the full glare of public attention. It is right that such important legislation, which will exercise a great—and, I believe, highly beneficial—influence over our industrial life, should be subjected to this treatment. This treatment has also become necessary if we are to have an informed debate in the country, in view of the gross distortion and misrepresentation which our proposals have suffered at the hands of our opponents over the three months or so since we published them. The Under-Secretary of State was welcoming the opportunity of having full and detailed examination of the Bill in the full glare of publicity, and of sweeping away all the misconceptions due to the wicked distortions of the Bill by its opponents. He was positively agog and aglow with excitement at the opportunity of doing all this. I do not believe for a moment that he had a clue about a timetable Motion. If, a week last Friday, he had know that the Government were proposing to put the clamp on all of these exciting possibilities, he could not have made that speech.

Mr. Dudley Smith

The right hon. Gentleman, like me, did not know then that we would have had 20 hours' debate on barely two Clauses. In putting forward the proposal that the debate was rightly being taken on the Floor of the House I thought it might do something, with the national publicity that it would attract, to put right the damage being done by those deliberately distorting the proposals—[HON.MEMBERS: "Why gag it then?"]—and therefore I thought it perfectly fair to state that it was a good thing to take it on the Floor of the House. I believe that the valuable amount of time being devoted to the Bill is perfectly adequate.

Mr. Houghton

The first 20 hours is a small amount of time for the "full glare of publicity". In any case, those 20 hours did receive a great deal of publicity because there was discussion on some of the fundamental parts of the Bill which would be gone into in greater detail later.

I am reminding the House that this is not a debate on the Bill but a debate for more time for the Bill. The Secretary of State spoke of urgency. What we want is extra days, meaning extra weeks, several extra weeks, which in the long timetable of this legislation is surely worthwhile if it will remove the deep-seated grievance that the Opposition have about present proceedings. It just depends how much value the Government attach to restoring the relationship between Opposition and the Government on matters of Government business and procedure.

Unless they are restored, our future work and effectiveness is put in jeopardy, and that would be a great pity. I beseech the Government to pause for a while for thought about the possibility of some more tolerable arrangement. I have the deepest misgivings about the way in which this legislation will leave the House if this timetable is adhered to. I do not think that the Government yet realise what milling this Bill requires to make it a viable piece of legislation.

It has had a bad Press in informed quarters and a great deal of the criticisms and doubts of informed persons have been drowned in the din of union protest and marching. But it is very significant doubt which is being expressed about the Bill in some weighty quarters. I wish that calmer counsel could prevail. The Bill needs drastic amendment, and everyone knows that. I imagine that the Government's Amendments alone are bound to take up a great deal of the time allotted to Committee stage. The Government have lacked the valuable advice and assistance of the Trades Union Congress and the unions. Much of the rethinking of their proposals will have to be done internally in the Ministry and with such advice and help as can be given during the Committee stage from these benches. Some parts of the Bill will be extremely difficult to apply in their present form. A large part of it will be absolutely unenforceable in its present form. I do not think, if the Bill becomes an Act, that there will be any Act, apart from those dealing with road traffic offences, which will be more ignored or defied. That will be very bad for legislation. It will be loosely applied and capriciously enforced, and that, too, will be bad.

The Government take a grave responsibility upon themselves if they let legislation leave this House defective and ambiguous—providing a new source of wealth for the lawyers. If the Bill becomes an Act it will send many more lawyers' sons to Eton. Unions in Britain will be like those in the United States; they will have to have tame lawyers on tap all the time to advise shop stewards and union branches. The fabric of legal help and advice that the unions will require will be astonishing when the time comes.

From my experience of the trade union movement, industrial relations, staff relations, and the law of trade unions—which is not inconsiderable—I view the Bill with the deepest apprehension as a workable instrument for bringing about improvement in industrial relations. I do not think that opinions like mine and other trade unionists of equally long experience and of sound judgment can be ignored, especially when fortified, as they are at present, by skilled legal advice about the weaknesses and follies of the Bill.

References to this Bill's having the longest time on the Floor of the House of any Bill since the war—Finance Bills apart—do not take account of the fact that this is the longest Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House. It is not the length of the Bill that matters; it is what is in it, its complexity, and what it does to people, that matters. It is a reversal of the legal rights and traditions of the trade union movement, as built up over many years under the protection of the law. Many articles are being run in the Sunday Times and The Times, bringing out the real significance of many parts of the Bill. No hon. Member can feel satisfied about the treatment of the Bill unless he is sure that adequate time for discussing it in a rational spirit, with a desire to make constructive improvements, is available—and in present circumstances it is not.

I hope that the House will take this opportunity—perhaps the last opportunity—of taking stock of where we are and where we are going. Is there nothing to come from the Government benches that will help break this deadlock? If the House adjourns this debate it can come back to it when fresh discussions have taken place through the restored usual channels. That, surely, is a conciliatory proposal to make to the House. If it is rejected, the House will have to put up with what is coming to it from an angry Opposition, feeling thwarted, cheated and deceived about this timetable Motion—a feeling which is bound to express itself in a hundred different ways and to make life in Parliament less desirable and less satisfactory than we all hope to see.

1.40 a.m.

Mr. R. Carr

The right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) tries to be very persuasive. The right hon. Gentleman started by saying that one reason for adjourning the debate was that we are now in the still watches of the night. I thought that we were at the time of night when the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends wished to be debating the Bill. Am I not right in thinking that one of the proposals which the Opposition wished to put before the House tonight was that our timetable Motion should include sitting until six o'clock every morning for 30 days; that is, two days a week from now until the middle of May?

Mrs. Castle

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was present in the earlier part of the debate or was listening. If the right hon. Gentleman had been listening he would have heard me say that if the number-of-days Amendment were conceded to us, we would not intend to move the hours Amendment, because we were seeking to get another 240 hours. If we could get those hours by more days, we certainly did not want to sit through the night.

Mr. Carr

I apologise for not hearing that earlier. Anyhow, it is the time of day or night which, for ten days or so, the Opposition would have wished us to sit. I cannot advise the House that that is a good cause for stopping our debate now. I should think that we wanted to take all opportunities to get on with the Bill. Had we got on with this debate somewhat more quickly, we could, some hours earlier, have gone on to the Bill and had many hours on it in addition to the allotted days proposed in the timetable Motion.

The right hon. Member for Sowerby also spoke about this time of night being the worst possible beginning. I should think that we had other beginnings earlier which might possibly have been candidates in that competition.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke about my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House talking about a misunderstanding between the usual channels. The right hon. Gentleman said that what was wanted was consultation. I could not help wondering what would have happened to the Opposition Chief Whip or to the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) had some of their colleagues on the back benches discovered that they had been in genuine consultation, shall I say, about a voluntary timetable Motion. I think that they would have had a rather thin time.

The basic fact is that it was crystal clear from the Opposition Chief Whip's very firm official reply to my right hon. Friend, from the right hon. Lady's words in the debate on the Consultative Document which the Leader of the House quoted in his opening speech at the beginning of this debate, and from the attitude of many hon. Members opposite in speeches which they had made both inside and outside this House, that any talk about a voluntary timetable was absolute nonsense and not a subject to be pursued.

Mr. Reginald Freeson (Willesden, East)

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the decision about a Timetable Motion was taken before or during the Christmas Recess? That is the only conclusion which we can draw from his remarks. If so, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that he and his colleagues, during the debate, have been misleading the House and the public? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to check my point?

Mr. Carr

I am not saying anything of the kind; nor should anything that I have said be interpreted in that way. I was saying that one of the accusations being made against the Government is the lack of exploration of the possibility of a voluntary timetable. The strong evidence is that such pursuit would not have produced such a result.

Mr. Freeson

The right hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding my point, because he is adducing as evidence in support of the Government's case that statements made at the start of the debate on the Bil—on Second Reading and outside this House—led to this judgment that there had to be a Timetable Motion. That means that the judgment must have been made before the Christmas Recess. The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House and the public if he is saying otherwise.

Mr. Carr

The hon. Gentleman has no right to make, and there is no evidence to support, accusations of that kind.

Mrs. Castle

What evidence does the right hon. Gentleman have?

Mr. Carr

We have some evidence. There are the right hon. Lady's speeches, as well as many other things. When we decided to accede to the very strong request made by the Opposition that the Bill was of such constitutional and national importance that the Committee sage ought to be taken on the Floor of the House rather than in Standing Committee, we naturally took into account that it would need a considerable length of time in Committee. We could not have made the decision to take the Committee stage on the Floor of the House unless we had been prepared to grant the Bill an exceptional amount of time, by any standard, on the Floor of the House.

Mrs. Castle

It is not exceptional by any standard.

Mr. Carr

The right hon. Lady mutters that it is not exceptional by any standard. It is exceptional for a Committee stage on the Floor of the House. That is a fact which cannot be denied.

Mr. Robert Hughes rose——

Mr. Carr

I am sorry. I gave way to the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson), and he did not have very much to contribute.

In acceding to the Opposition's request we realised that we should have to make available an exceptional amount of time for the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, and we had in mind this period of about 12 days, which is what we are talking about now. We decided that it was right to start—[Interruption.]—It is an exceptional amount of time. As my right hon. Gentleman said, this represents about one-third of the legislative time available to the Government on the Floor of the House.

Mrs. Castle rose——

Mr. Carr

I shall give way to the right hon. Lady in a moment. We decided, rightly or wrongly, and this must be a matter of judgment, that the thing to do was to let the Committee stage begin and to see what progress we made.

Mrs. Castle

The right hon. Gentleman keeps on saying that what is to be allotted is an exceptional amount of time on the Floor of the House by any standard. That is what we are challenging, because if the right hon. Gentleman casts his mind back to the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill which was taken on the Floor of the House he will realise that we were given 57 hours for a Bill consisting of 38 Clauses. On this occasion the right hon. Gentleman is giving us 100 hours in Committee for a Bill of 150 Clauses and eight Schedules. What I am saying to the right hon. Gentleman is that by the standard of the size of the Bill this is not an exceptional amount of time. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that we have to disregard the size of the Bill, or the importance of the Bill, because the amount of time available is to be limited to an arbitrary amount, that ought to have been made clear to us when the Government said that they were prepared to take the Committee stage on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Carr

I still say that by any standard the amount of time being allotted for the Bill is very long. The amount of time allotted cannot be judged only by numbers of Clauses. Whatever the right hon. Lady may say, the fact is that there are many proposals and Clauses in the Bill which, if the right hon. Lady does not support now, she did until very recently. Some part of the proposals on unfair dismissal is surely agreed between us. A number of Clauses altering the Contracts of Employment Act contain proposals which are the same is those put forward by the right hon. Lady. There is the question of registration which is now—[Interruption]—It is no good the right hon. Lady saying that it is not remotely like it. It is very like it, and it is also like what was proposed unanimously by the Donovan Commission. Large sections of the Bill and the idea that trade unionists should be able to appeal to an independent board and a registrar were essential parts of the Donovan Report and her proposals "In Place of Strife".

Mrs. Castle

The right hon. Member knows perfectly well that on every one of those issues, even on workers' rights, where my Bill contained proposals, he has parodied them—and we claim that they are a parody. Even on unfair dismissal, the vital issue of the right of reinstatement is a matter on which we are not satisfied and which we have a right to discuss. The right hon. Gentleman is saying that we have to take his word that his proposals are similar to mine, even though every expert denies it. Because the right hon. Gentleman says that they are the same, we are to be denied time to examine his proposals. We call that dictatorship.

Mr. Carr

It is a little hard for the right hon. Lady to maintain that case. Earlier this evening, when she was moving the last Amendment, the right hon. Lady said something about winning the vote and losing the argument. I thought that in order to be able to lose the argument one had to be allowed to speak, which I was not allowed to do. She also spoke of this Government's contempt for democracy. I though one essence of democracy was free speech in Parliament which is something else—[Interruption.]——

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North) rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We must try to keep the temperature down. It is rather late. The Minister is entitled to say what he thinks fit. Hon. Members will have the opportunity afterwards to reply to him, but he should be heard in reasonable silence.

Mr. Carr

I do not wish to be unnecessarily provocative, but provocation in some hon. Member's minds seems to be perfectly all right as long as it goes one way only. Does the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) wish to intervene?

Mr, Molloy

This whole issue is involved with industrial relations. Does the Minister realise that his deceptive and mean attitude a moment ago is completely in line with the same argument about trade unionists which caused the irony, agony, and upset we have seen in the House of Commons today? If he is not prepared at least to try to be honest with the House, how does he expect to get any consideration for his Bill?

Mr. Carr

I am being honest with the House. I am saying that we met a strong request from the Opposition for the Committee stage to be on the Floor of the House. We accepted that and made considerable room for it in the parliamentary timetable. We have given about a third of the time to be spent on legislative matters in the Session to this Bill. That is a substantial allocation of time which, if we could use it properly and constructively, would enable all the important measures and proposals in the Bill to be adequately debated.

The House and the country must bear in mind that the main principles and lines of action with which we are dealing in this Bill have probably been more widely debated inside and outside this House during the last three or four years than this or any other subject has ever been debated before. As I was saying earlier tonight, we as a party, while in opposition, put forward our plans in great detail. We made no secret of them. Because also of the Donovan Report and of the right hon. Lady's White Paper "In Place of Strife", this subject has been widely and thoroughly debated over and over again, and has therefore been fully debated in principle.

Of course we agree that detail is just as important as principle, which is why I said in answer to an earlier intervention that we decided, having made up our minds to have the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, that we must make an unusual amount of time available. We thought that we would start and see how it went, but the first two days, the first 20 hours, made it clear that the Opposition were not wishing to spend the time——

Mr. Heffer

The right hon. Gentleman took 40 minutes to reply to one Amendment.

Mr. Carr

Because of how many interruptions, on a wide-ranging subject? One cannot get it right for the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends. If one gives way, one is criticised for taking too much time, and if one does not, one is shouted at from a sitting position.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman and others to bear in mind what a Member of the last Labour Cabinet, the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) said in the debate on the Bill? Referring to me, he said: He is certainly not doing anything new by inserting this as the principle upon which the Bill is based. Clause 1 lays down a number of principles, none of which is new, and all of which have come to us over the years and could surely … have been put in some way not really included within the Bill itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1971; Vol. 809, c. 591–2.] That is the view of the right hon. Gentleman. Why should the right hon. Lady want a debate of 20 hours? Her right hon. Friend, who everyone says knows his business from long experience in this field, says that these principles, none of which is new, and all of which have come to us over the years", need not have been part of the Bill or subject to that kind of debate.

Mr. Rose

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in Clause 1, he was setting out a number of very complex legal principles, of which even he was unable to give us an interpretation, with a number of courts of law, one of which is entirely new, the N.I.R.C., which was entirely new and unprecedented, and not even mentioned in Donovan, and that he introduced virtually a Second Reading debate, which was calculated to take up the time of the House, and that hon. Members on his side took un almost as much time as my hon. Friends?

Mr. Carr

I certainly would not agree with that. If one distributed Clause 1 of our Bill among the trade unionists of this country, a very large majority would agree that these should be the guiding principles. What, of course, is absolutely vital, and what the rest of the Bill is about, and what undoubtedly is controversial, is whether the rest of the Bill does or does not effectively carry out those principles. But the principles themselves are unexceptionable——

Mr. Orme

Then why put them in the Bill?

Mr. Carr

Is it wrong to state at the beginning of a Bill on this sort of subject what are the principles which we wish to see followed in this country? We thought when we put them in that we should be bringing comfort and reassurance. Of course we did. I know my own Bill.

Having considered the matter closely, and having had two days in which to examine it thoroughly, we came to the conclusion that if we were to be able to have proper discussion of the Bill in a reasonable time, then, while giving to it an exceptionally large amount of time by any standards, it was necessary to have a timetable Motion. As we concluded that there was no chance of getting an agreed, voluntary timetable, my right hon. Friend felt that he must take responsibility for moving the guillotine Motion, and to do so earlier rather than later. The House will agree that if we are to get a full discussion of the most important points, it is better—that is, if, unfortunately, there must be a guillotine Motion—to have such a Motion at a very early stage, so enabling the House to use the time available on what it considers to be the most important points.

I assure hon. Members that in arranging how we use this time, it will be our intention to bend over backwards to try, within what is a substantial measure of time, to arrange that the points which hon. Gentlemen opposite believe to be the most important get the maximum time spent on them.

Mr. Freeson rose——

Mr. Carr

No. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.

If and when that stage is reached, in the Business Committee we shall put forward and discuss propositions in the most helpful way possible to try to ensure that what the Opposition regard as the major and key points in the Bill get adequate debating time; and I believe that the ten further days in Committee and the generous time on Report will enable us to succeed in debating the Bill adequately. We shall succeed in doing that if we go about our business in an orderly way.

I therefore recommend to the House that we continue this debate tonight and pass the main Motion so that we may get on with making arrangements for the orderly and full discussion of the Bill.

2.4 a.m.

Mr. Tinn

Each Government spokesman on this subject makes a worse speech than the last in reply to the points my hon. Friends and I are making on this Bill. I cannot understand how it is possible for the Secretary of State to complain about so-called delay on our part when one thinks, as he must, of the 1964 and 1966 Parliaments.

In those days similar situations arose, but what was the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite then? They were in opposition and frequently, when the Chair announced that it was prepared in due course to accept the Closure Motion, they spent two hours raising bogus points of order, each one more or less challenging the authority of Mr. Speaker. It was then that we had a right to complain. On this occasion not one point of order has been raised, and hardly one complaint, about the action of the Government Chief Whip and the Leader of the House.

The Secretary of State's attitude to any kind of discussion of this very important Measure is that it is time wasting delay. When one recalls his inability to explain some of the more complicated legal provisions one can understand his reluctance to have the kind of detailed discussion we think absolutely essential.

The right hon. Gentleman made what must be regarded as a shabby attempt to explain away the Government's failure even to attempt to reach some kind of voluntary timetabling agreement. The attempt might not have been successful, but it should have been made before the present procedure was adopted. It was utterly unworthy of the Secretary of State flippantly to try to explain it all away by saying that it would have been very embarrassing to our Front Bench if back benchers had heard of such discussion. Such a retort was not worthy of him, and does not measure up to the situation. There would be great weight in the Government's argument if they could show that the Opposition had already wasted time in Committee, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) spelled out clearly and factually by reference to the number of column inches in HANSARD, no such charge can lie against us; and that despite the tremendous pressures many of us have been under to pursue what might be called a more vigorous opposition.

The Treasury Bench attitude was well summed up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) on Second Reading. His speech was a model of restraint and responsible approach to a Measure which we all detest from end to end. Nevertheless, many of us recognise that, we having lost the General Election, and the Government having the power to carry the Measure through, we have an obligation to assess the position realistically. We recognise that we have an obligation to try to improve the Bill, as far as that is possible, in the hope that the Government may have the wisdom to accept such slight improvement as can be made in a Measure which is at best irrelevant to the problems it purports to solve, and which most probably will greatly and savagely increase them.

The restraint of the Opposition can be illustrated if I mention a little incident that took place during the Committee stage. One does not usually refer to the activities of the respective Whips in their discussions with backbench Members. Most of us on the back benches feel that those activities are best left in obscurity. But it is worth saying that on one occasion four of us on this side of the House who had sat right through the debate and were anxious to speak on an Amendment were approached by the Opposition deputy Chief Whip who asked us very seriously to refrain from speaking on that Amendment. Reluctantly we agreed. We did so because we recognised that on a Measure of the size and complexity of this one there needed to be some sort of team work, a readiness on the part of the Opposition to be reasonable and to impose self-discipline, in order that we would get to the later part of the Bill which was even more contentious. So we acceded to this request from our Front Bench, as members of a team. Our behaviour during some of the longer-running Committees on steel, prices and incomes, transport and so on, when the Labour Party was in office, was in complete contrast with the behaviour of Conservative Members in a similar situation.

One possible justification for time-tabling this Bill in such a speedy fashion would be if we abused the time available. But that accusation cannot possibly be made. It cannot seriously be claimed that the time proposed is adequate. The Bill is not only long, but complex. I have been looking through some of the later parts of the Bill which are very likely to be omitted from detailed consideration if this timetable Motion is adhered to. The whole of Part III is on collective bargaining, consisting of 25 Clauses, some of which are of tremendous importance. Clause 32 creates the presumption that any written collective agreement concluded after the commencement of the Act will be held to be a legally enforceable contract unless the parties write into it a provision expressly to the contrary.

Can one conceive of this Bill getting on to the Statute Book without that highly contentious Clause being debated, particularly when one sees all over the developed world those countries in which this kind of provision exists either ignoring it, as in Western Germany—where presumably it would be most needed in view of the recent spate of strikes—or actively seeking to withdraw such provisions from their legislation?

In the same Part, Clause 35 gives power to the Secretary of State to apply to the Industrial Court for remedial action where he believes that procedure agreements are either absent or are defective. That, again, is a tremendously important power which should be carefully considered.

There are 23 other Clauses in this Part alone. Clause 48 struck me as interesting It provides that, in one circumstance, one-fifth of the employees within a bargaining unit, or, in another circumstance, two-fifths of the workers there employed, may apply to the court on the ground that the recognised union or joint negotiating panel does not adequately represent the employees or a section of them. There are two points here. First, I fear that a provision of that kind will cut across and tend to replace the working of the voluntary Bridlington agreement which the Trades Union Congress has operated successfully for many years. Surprisingly enough, considering the source of the proposal, it will be likely to open the door to competition in militancy between rival unions seeking to gain the right to negotiate in a particular factory.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright (Dearne Valley)

There is a great fear among the legal profession that it might affect the lawyers' system for organising themselves.

Mr. Tinn

That point is well taken by my hon. Friend. I notice a significant difference in the way that voting proceedures are treated in Clause 50 as compared with Clause 13. Under Clause 13, if a majority of the workers eligible to vote have voted in the ballot in favour of an agency shop agreement, it shall be the duty of the employer to take all such action as is requisite on his part for the purpose. It is a stiff voting requirement—not a simple majority as in any other democratic procedure which comes readily to mind but a majority of those entitled to vote. That seems an odd provision.

One would expect some consistency, but under Clause 50, which I call loosely the splinter union Clause, giving people the chance to dismiss their union, a union can lose its negotiating right by a simple majority of those voting. Why the difference in voting procedures?

Part IV, consisting of 28 Clauses, dealing with the registration and conduct of trade unions and employers' associations, has enough genuine material not merely for controversy but for constructive debate to require on its own at least the 30 days for which my right hon. Friend asked.

Throughout the controversy on the consultative document and the Bill there has been inside the Labour movement a natural difference of view as to how the Bill might best be opposed. Many people, particularly outside the House, have felt that Parliamentary resistance, given the Government's majority, is futile. The majority of us on this side, whilst understanding that point of view, have nevertheless felt an obligation honestly to resist the Bill legitimately in the House to the best of our ability, and to improve it where possible. But that responsibility on our part requires a similar response from the Government, which has been totally lacking, as illustrated by their arrogance and their refusal to make any concessions today to the Opposition's very reasonable and legitimate requests.

2.21 a.m.

Mr. Molloy

My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) presented coolly and logically an argument that was for the benefit not only of the Opposition or the Government but of the House of Commons. It was so devastatingly logical that it completely floored the Secretary of State, who made one of the most miserable responses to an argument that we have ever heard in the House. It is not usual for him to be so ludicrously provocative as he was tonight. His contribution was no help to the millions of trade unionists who are examining the Measure and are apprehensive whether they will get a square deal through their representatives in the House. They will now be convinced that it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to see that the Bill, a fundamental attack on the democratic freedom of trade unionists, is rammed through the House. To do that they will deprive elected representatives on this side of any right to present proper opposition to the Bill.

I do not like to have to say this about the Secretary of State, because there have been times when he has leaned over backwards to be accommodating on other Measures with which he has been involved. When he was in Opposition he took a similar point of view.

Mr. Orme

He was an entirely different man then.

Mr. Molloy

The right hon. Gentleman built up for himself a reputation for being at least always willing to listen to a different point of view, but we can now see that he was engaged in a very cunning piece of preparatory work. He has revealed this tonight. The attitude of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman on this issue will not be lost on millions of trade unionists. I fear a situation might arise in which appeal from anyone in this House—from either side—might be ignored by those in industry unless there are serious second thoughts by the Government about restricting discussion on one of the most controversial issues to come before Parliament since the Second World War.

I say to those hon. Members perched on the benches opposite that they should take it easy. They can rest for another half hour or so. They must recognise that there has been a certain degree of treachery over this issue by their hon. Friends in speeches outside the House. My right hon. Friend quoted from a speech by the Under-Secretary of State, who said he was proud of the fact that there would be thorough, exhaustive and searching discussion in the House and that the glare of publicity would be on the House and the Bill so that the public could understand the issues. Then the Under-Secretary and the rest of the Government come here and say, "We were deceiving you. We were living up to the standard of the Conservative Party". Benjamin Disraeli once described the Conservative Party as an organised hypocrisy, and it is that of which right hon. and hon. Members opposite are guilty.

Yet, if hon. Members opposite, who seem to find this matter amusing, try to provoke trade unionists and to show them that the Conservative Party takes the issue lightly, and then find that trade unionists are reacting against such a banal attitude, they will turn round and accuse them of not heeding the will of Parliament and the law of the land. Trade unionists must beware of that situation. We must take note of statements made by hon. Members opposite on this issue.

The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) always seems to me to be guilty of stating the truth by accident. He argued that there was no point in having extra time because the Opposition would advance absurd arguments which he did not like and could not accept. Because he does not agree with our arguments, apparently he does not think that the Opposition have a right to more time. We have travelled this road before. This was the argument for the closing of the Reichstag. First, one cuts down the arguments advanced by the Opposition on the ground that one does not like them. One can find all sorts of reasons for stopping people from opposing one. When the hon. Gentleman was making that disgusting argument, there were many serious faces on the benches opposite—faces of much older and more experienced Conservatives who seemed to me to find his approach as nauseating as I did.

Although we may disagree with an hon. Member's argument and find it useless, we nevertheless agree that he has a right to express it. But this principle was rejected by the hon. Member for Woking. That sort of argument can lead to the establishment of an authoritarian State. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here, but I hope he will read his speech carefully. If the hon. Gentleman himself does not condemn it, I hope that the Secretary of State will.

I was amazed by the argument put forward by the Secretary of State this evening. Indeed, we had the same sort of speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. The essence of this whole debate concerns the rights of ordinary people to discuss their working conditions and their rates of pay. What has happened very often is that they have been denied the right to negotiate and time to explain their point of view. The result has been industrial unrest. Everybody—particularly hon. Members opposite—condemns industrial unrest. We on this side of the House have a little more experience from the working man's point of view. And we know that if the working man is denied the opportunity to negotiate with his employer on his terms of engagement or to discuss any emergency that arises on the factory floor or in the mine, this leads to industrial unrest.

This is what has happened in the House of Commons in this recent period. There has been a denial of the right to negotiate. It would appear that the normal standard of discussion through the usual channels has not been maintained. Something has gone wrong. It is no good hon. Members opposite saying how sorry they are, if the Government will go not any part of the way towards what is contained in our Amendments.

The reasonable and logical arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) were rejected by the Government. One can see in the Government's attitude a reflection of some of the reactionary managements which cause industrial unrest. Because of that attitude, we had a form of parliamentary unrest in the House this evening. Although the Bill is misconceived, we were trying to come to some arrangement by which we could not only make a contribution to establishing industrial peace but also make the Bill a saner piece of legislation.

We acknowledge that the Government have a right to introduce a Measure, no matter how distasteful, and we hope that they appreciate that we have a right to oppose and amend it.

The rights of the Opposition are being removed on a vital Bill which has been the main subject of discussion among trade unions and managements all over the country. The Government have revealed the Bill's irrelevance to the problems of the time, and they condemn their own incompetence and uselessness.

2.36 a.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Poplar

I should like to add my own less eloquent and less authoritative voice to the appeal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) to the Government to stop pushing us as hard as they are, going through the night on the Bill, which is what it looks like, and to allow a bit more time, a bit more leisure, a bit less pressure, so that there may be some reflection and cooling of the temper.

In an earlier debate and tonight the Secretary of State has referred to his claim that the Government had a complete mandate for the Bill. What the Government had a mandate for was a package, contained in the Conservative Party's manifesto. There will be many people who voted for the right hon. Gentleman, although they disapproved of one or two or three items in that manifesto, because they thought on balance that they liked the look of that better than whatever alternatives were offered, and there were people who voted for me who did not like one or two things I said in my election address.

Two parts of the package are particularly closely linked. They have been linked for several years in the minds of all hon. Members and the minds of many people in the country. They are prices and incomes. It will not be a secret to the right hon. Gentleman, or anyone else in the House, that I was not the most passionately enthusiastic supporter of the prices and incomes policy and the Prices and Incomes Acts of the Labour Government, but I must pay tribute to them for keeping, or trying to keep—they did not always succeed—those two horses, prices and incomes, in tandem. They showed the country that they were two things to be considered together.

Put in a grossly oversimplified form, the arguments always were that prices could not be kept down if incomes were allowed to roar, and, as against that, that wages could not be expected to be kept down if prices were allowed to run loose. On both sides of the argument the two were closely linked.

The right hon. Gentleman may fairly claim that more people in the country approved of his package on prices and incomes than approved of ours. What he cannot claim, because he cannot possibly know, and nor can I and nor can anyone else, is that many people, or a given number of people, voted for one item in the package, because that is something which none of us will ever know. But I will hazard a guess that there were linked together in the minds of many people who cast Conservative votes the idea that they were prepared to take what the Conservative Party were proposing in legislation against the trade unions—the purpose of which, let us not mince words, is unilaterally to disarm one side in the wages struggle—because they had linked to it a commitment at-a-stroke to make an immediate reduction in prices.

What the right hon. Gentleman has a mandate for, if he has one for anything, is the Bill as part of a package of which the other major ingredient is the immediate reduction at-a-stroke of prices. He cannot say that he has a mandate for the kicks without the halfpennies or the halfpennies without the kicks. I hope that we shall not hear any more from him or his hon. Friends about the mandate until the day when they have at-a-stroke reduced prices. Then they will have every right to talk about it until they are blue in the face.

The second of the right hon. Gentleman's points was that the reason why they never sought to agree a voluntary timetable with the Opposition was that some observations of right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition had convinced him and his right hon. Friends that there was no chance of getting such a voluntary timetable. The right hon. Gentleman is, as I am, a fair old hand in the House. He knows something about the realities of power politics. Every Government likes to put every Opposition in the wrong. If the right hon. Gentleman believed what he was saying tonight, that would have been a very good reason, in practical political terms, for approaching the Opposition in order to reach a voluntary agreement about a timetable.

If he had approached the Opposition, and the Opposition, either because its leaders—my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and others—did not want a voluntary timetable, or, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, because even if they had wanted it they would have been terrified of some of their hon. Friends behind them, whatever the reason, had given him a dusty answer, what a lovely position he would have been in. He could have said, "Look at me, Robert Carr, known far and wide as the reasonable bloke always ready to offer some accommodation to my opponents, the absolute model, the highest simulacrum of reasonableness, moderation, kindness and tolerance. I go along to these Opposition people bearing gifts, and they kick me in the backside." What a lovely position that would have been for the right hon. Gentleman.

I suspect that the reason why the Government never approached the Opposition for a voluntary timetable is the precise opposite of what the right hon. Gentleman said and that they were afraid they might get one. But in any case, the right hon. Gentleman had nothing to lose. Every betting man knows that one never misses an opportunity of getting a bet to nothing, where one draws one's money if one wins and does not pay out if one loses. The right hon. Gentleman was on a bet to nothing by approaching the Opposition for a voluntary timetable. If they had agreed he would have got what he wanted. If they had disagreed, he would have been able to represent to the country that the Opposition were being unreasonable. Knowing that the right hon. Gentleman is not one of the daftest of the Members opposite, I cannot believe that he did not think that one through. This makes me—much as I dislike querying the motives of people, however much I disagree with them—rather doubt the sincerity of the reasons which he gave for not having approached the Opposition for a voluntary timetable.

I want to say something about us having a bit more time to reflect and for temperatures to cool. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware, from his office and his previous service in the equivalent Department, that he is facing not only opposition across the Floor of the House but a great deal of opposition outside, in the country. He must know that his problem is not merely to get this Bill passed in this House. That is the easier of his two tasks, because whatever arguments we on this side use against the Bill, he has a much more powerful argument in favour of the Bill—the most powerful argument in the world, namely a majority.

Much the more difficult of his two tasks is to get sufficient, I will not say acceptance, but at least benevolent hostility in the reaction of those who will be affected by the Bill, to make it operable. As others wiser than I have said, nothing brings the law into disrepute so much as the passing of Acts which are widely ignored because they are inoperable. However brave a front the right hon. Gentleman may put on it in the House, I suspect that he has been thinking a great deal in the privacy of his room and his Department about this and that Clause, asking himself, "Will it work if a large body of workers affected by it does not want it to work?" He will be conscious that he has a problem.

From his experience, the right hon. Gentleman knows the trade union movement well enough to know that a trade union, like the Conservative or Labour Party, is not a bunch of precisely homogeneous people. Like the Conservative and Labour Party and, certainly like the Liberal Party, a trade union has within it people with different tendencies, different outlooks, different sections and affections, even different caucuses. There is in some trade unions—I do not think they represent a majority in any trade union, or anything like it—a very vocal minority which exercises more influence than its numbers deserve.

We heard them being vocal at the Albert Hall a week or two ago. There is in every trade union one group of people going around saying all the time, "All that is going on in Parliament is a charade; that is not the way to kill the Bill. There are other ways of killing the Bill or other ways of killing it in the sense of stopping it being enacted by causing a lot of trouble in its operation." As president of a not unimportant union I should welcome as little as the right hon. Gentleman a growth in the numbers and influence of people of that kind. Once we start on that, it can be a slippery slope. The overwhelming majority of trade unionists are highly responsible people and it is in the common interest of us all to preserve that situation.

Anything that strengthens the hands of the irresponsible and weakens the hands of the responsible is to be deplored. In this guillotine Motion and the way in which it has been brought about the right hon. Gentleman has given a free gift to the less desirable elements in the trade union movement. He ought not to have done it. He has created headaches for responsible leaders in the trade unions, but he has created superabundant headaches for himself.

How can I say to the people in the trade unions, "We have a parliamentary democracy. We may not like what the majority party does, but there are ways of dealing with the situation, and we must deal with it in the ways that have for long been traditional in this country." How can I justify that argument? One of the things that we often say when we are talking about South Africa or some other totalitarian regime is, "You can justify extra-parliamentary action only in circumstances in which there is not a free right of parliamentary discussion." How

can I say to the militants in the trade unions, "Look, boys, you have to drop some of the more extreme things that you are thinking about, because we can argue the matter out in the traditional way of British parliamentary democracy on the Floor of the House" when, whatever the Business Committee proposes, some of the Clauses that adversely affect hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people will not have one minute of discussion?

How can we not recognise that we are here digging the grave not of the Bill but of the Act—digging its grave after it has been passed? What we are doing is to make the Measure totally inoperable.

The right hon. Gentleman has seen tonight a very small and not a very worrying example of indignation breaking out when the safety valve is held down. I suggest that he will see many much bigger examples over the next few months and the next year or two—some of which may be very costly. What he is now doing largely stamps him as the architect of that situation. I warn him against this not out of any desire to be proved a true prophet; I warn him against it out of some experience of the matter—an experience which I know he shares. I say even now that he would be well advised to say to the House, "Let us go to bed now. Tomorrow I will talk through the usual channels and see if it is not possible to make a clean start."

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

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 297. Noes 259.

Cormack, Patrick	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Proudfoot, Wilfred
Costain, A. P.	Jessel, Toby	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Critchley, Julian	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Crouch, David	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Raison, Timothy
Curran, Charles	Jopling, Michael	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Dalkeith, Earl of	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Redmond, Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Kellett, Mrs. Elaine	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen. Jack	Kershaw, Anthony	Rees, Peter (Dover)
Dean, Paul	Kilfedder, James	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.	Kimball, Marcus	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Digby, Simon Wingfield	King, Everyn (Dorset,S.)	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Dixon, Piers	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Ridsdale, Julian
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Kinsey, J. R.	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec	Kirk, Peter	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Drayson, G. B.	Kitson, Timothy	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Knox, David	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Dykes, Hugh	Lambton, Antony	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Eden, Sir John	Lane, David	Rost, Peter
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Royle, Anthony
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Russell, Sir Ronald
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)	Le Marchant, Spencer	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Emery, Peter	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Scott, Nicholas
Eyre, Reginald	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	Sharples, Richard
Farr, John	Longden, Gilbert	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Fell, Anthony	Loveridge, John	Shelton, William (Clapham)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Simeons, Charles
Fidler, Michael	MacArthur, Ian	Sinclair, Sir George
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	McCrindle, R. A.	Skeet, T. H. H.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	McLaren, Martin	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Fookes, Miss Janet	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Soref, Harold
Fortescue, Tim	McMaster, Stanley	Speed, Keith
Foster, Sir John	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Spence, John
Fowler, Norman	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Sproat, Iain
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)	Stainton, Keith
Fry, Peter	Maddan, Martin	Stanbrook, Ivor
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.	Madel, David	Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Gibson-Watt, David	Maginnis, John E.	Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Marten, Neil	Stokes, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan	Mather, Carol	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Goodhart, Philip	Maude, Angus	Sutcliffe, John
Goodhew, Victor	Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald	Tapsell, Peter
Gorst, John	Mawby, Ray	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Gower, Raymond	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Gray, Hamish	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Green, Alan	Miscampbell, Norman	Tebbit, Norman
Grieve, Percy	Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)	Temple, John M.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Grylls, Michael	Moate, Roger	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Gummer, Selwyn	Molyneaux, James	Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Gurden, Harold	Money, Ernie	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Tilney, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Monro, Hector	Trafford, Dr Anthony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Montgomery, Fergus	Trew, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	More, Jasper	Tugendhat, Christopher
Hannam, John (Exeter)	Morgan, Geraint (Denb'gh)	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	Van Straubenzee, W. R.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Haselhurst, Alan	Mudd, David	Vickers, Dame Joan
Hastings, Stephen	Murton, Oscar	Waddington, David
Havers, Michael	Neave, Airey	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Hayhoe, Barney	Nicholls, Sir Harmer	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Heseltine, Michael	Normanton, Tom	Wall, Patrick
Hicks, Robert	Nott, John	Walters, Dennis
Higgins, Terence L.	Onslow, Cranley	Ward, Dame Irene
Hiley, Joseph	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally	Warren, Kenneth
		Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	White, Roger (Gravesend)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Holland, Philip	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Wiggin, Jerry
Holt, Miss Mary	Page, John (Harrow, W.)	Wilkinson, John
Hordern, Peter	Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Hornby, Richard	Peel, John	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Percival, Ian	Woodnutt, Mark
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)	Peyton, Rt. Hn. John	Worsley, Marcus
Howel, David (Guildford)	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Pink, R. Bonner	Younger, Hn. George
Hunt, John	Pounder, Rafton
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Iremonger, T. L.	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Mr. Bernard Weatherill and
James, David	Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.	Mr. Paul Hawkins.

NOES
Abse, Leo	Fraser, John (Norwood)	Meacher, Michael
Albu, Austen	Freeson, Reginald	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Galpern, Sir Myer	Mendelson, John
Alldritt, Walter	Garrett, W. E.	Mikardo, Ian
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Gilbert, Dr. John	Millan, Bruce
Armstrong, Ernest	Ginsburg, David	Miller, Dr. M. S.
Ashton, Joe	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Atkinson, Norman	Gourlay, Harry	Molloy, William
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Barnes, Michael	Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Barnett, Joel	Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Beaney, Alan	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Gunter, Rt. Hn, R. J.	Moyle, Roland
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Bidwell, Sydney	Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	Murray, Ronald King
Bishop, E. S.	Hamling, William	Ogden, Eric
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	O'Halloran, Michael
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Hardy, Peter	O'Malley, Brian
Booth, Albert	Harper, Joseph	Oram, Bert
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Orbach, Maurice
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Orme, Stanley
Bradley, Tom	Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	Oswald, Thomas
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)	Heffter, Eric S.	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Hilton, W. S.	Padley, Walter
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Horam, John	Palmer, Arthur
Buchan, Norman	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Huckfield, Leslie	Pavitt, Laurie
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Pendry, Tom
Cant, R. B.	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Pentland, Norman
Carmichael, Neil	Hunter, Adam	Perry, Ernest G.
Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)	Janner, Greville	Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Jay, Rt. Hn, Douglas	Prescott, John
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)	Price, William (Rugby)
Clark, David (Coine Valley)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Probert, Arthur
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Cohen, Stanley	John, Brynmor	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Coleman, Donald	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Concannon, J. D.	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Richard, Ivor
Conlan, Bernard	Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Crawshaw, Richard	Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,s.)	Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Cronin, John	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Roper, John
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Kaufman, Gerald	Rose, Paul B.
Cunningham, C. (Islington, S.W.)	Kelley, Richard	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitchaven)	Kerr, Russell	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Dalyell, Tam	Kinnock, Neil	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
	Lambie, David	Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George	Lamond, James	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Davidson, Arthur	Latham, Arthur	Silkin,Rt.Hn. John (Deptford)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Lawon, George	Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Leadbitter, Ted	Sillars, James
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Leonard, Dick	Silverman, Julius
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Lestor, Miss Joan	Skinner, Dennis
Deakins, Eric	Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold	Small, William
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Spearing, Nigel
Dempsey, James	Lipton, Marcus	Spriggs, Leslie
Doig, Peter	Loughlin, Charles	Stallard, A. W.
Dormand, J. D.	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Driberg, Tom	McBride, Neil
Duffy, A. E. P.	McCartney, Hugh	Strang, Gavin
Dunn, James A.	McElhone, Frank	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Dunnett, Jack	McGuire, Michael	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Eadie, Alex	Mackenzle, Gregor	Swain, Thomas
Edelman, Maurice	Mackie, John	Taverne, Dick
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Mackintosh, John P.	Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Maclennan, Robert	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Ellis, Tom	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Evans, Fred	McNamara, J. Kevin	Tinn, James
Fernyhough, E.	MacPherson, Malcolm	Tomney, Frank
Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Torney, Tom
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Urwin, T. W.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Marks, Kenneth	Varley, Eric G.
Foley, Maurice	Marquand, David	Wainwright, Edwin
Foot, Michael	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Ford, Ben	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Forrester, John	Mayhew, Christopher	Wallace, George

Watkins, David	Whitlock, William	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Weitzman, David	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Wellbeloved, James	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)	Mr. Alan Fitch and
Whitehead, Phillip	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)	Mr. John Golding.

Question put accordingly, That the debate be now adjourned:—

Division No. 71.]	AYES	[3.6 a.m.
Abse, Leo	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Albu, Austen	Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Lipton, Marcus
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Ellis, Tom	Loughlin, Charles
Alldritt, Walter	Evans, Fred	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Fernyhough, E.	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Armstrong, Ernest	Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Ashton, Joe	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	McBride, Neil
Atkinson, Norman	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	McCartney, Hugh
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	McElhone, Frank
Barnes, Michael	Foley, Maurice	McGuire, Michael
Barnett, Joel	Foot, Michael	Mackenzie, Gregor
Beaney, Alan	Ford, Ben	Mackle, John
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Forrester, John	Mackintosh, John P.
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Fraser, John (Norwood)	Maclennan, Robert
Bidwell, Sydney	Freeson, Reginald	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Bishop, E. S.	Galpern, Sir Myer	McNamara, J. Kevin
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Garrett, W. E.	MacPherson, Malcolm
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Gilbert, Dr. John	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Booth, Albert	Ginsburg, David	Mallalieu, J. P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Marks, Kenneth
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)	Gourlay, Harry	Marquand, David
Bradley, Tom	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)	Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Mayhew, Christopher
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Meacher, Michael
Buchan, Norman	Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'hurn)	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Mendelson, John
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	Mikardo, Ian
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	Millan, Bruce
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Hardy, Peter	Miller, Dr. M. S.
Cant, R. B.	Harper, Joseph	Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Carmichael, Neil	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Molloy, William
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Heffer, Eric S.	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Hilton, W. S.	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Horam, John	Moyle, Roland
Cohen, Stanley	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Coleman, Donald	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Murray, Ronald King
Concannon, J. D.	Huckfield, Leslie	Ogden, Eric
Conlan, Bernard	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	O'Halloran, Michael
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	O'Malley, Brian
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Oram, Bert
Crawshaw, Richard	Hunter, Adam	Orbach, Maurice
Cronin, John	Janner, Greville	Orme, Stanley
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Oswald, Thomas
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Cunningham, G. (Islingten, S.W.)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Padley, Walter
Cunningham, Dr, J. A. (Whitehaven)	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Palmer, Arthur
Dalyell, Tam	John, Brynmor	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Darling, Rt. Hn. George	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Davidson, Arthur	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Pavitt, Laurie
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Pendry, Tom
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Pentland, Norman
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)	Perry, Ernest G.
Deakins, Eric	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Prescott, John
Delargy, H. J.	Kaufman, Gerald	Price, William (Rugby)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Kelley, Richard	Probert, Arthur
Dempsey, James	Kerr, Russell	Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Doig, Peter	Kinnock, Neil	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Dormand, J. D.	Lambie, David	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Lamond, James	Richard, Ivor
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Latham, Arthur	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Driberg, Tom	Lawson, George	Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Duffy, A. E. P.	Leadbitter, Ted	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Dunn, James A.	Leonard, Dick	Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Dunnett, Jack	Lester, Miss Joan	Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Eddie, Alex	Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold	Roper, John
Edelman, Maurice	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)	Rose, Paul B.

The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 297.

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)	Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John	Wallace, George
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)	Strang, Gavin	Watkins, David
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.	Weitzman, David
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley	Wellbeloved, James
Short,Mrs.Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)	Swain, Thomas	White, James (Glasgow, Pollak)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)	Taverne, Dick	Whitehead, Phillip
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)	Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)	Whitlock, William
Sillars, James	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silverman Julius	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Skinner, Dennis	Tinn, James	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Small, William	Tomney, Frank	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)	Torney, Tom	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Spearing, Nigel	Urwin, T. W.	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie	Varley, Eric G.
Stallard, A. W.	Wainwright, Edwin	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Stewart, Rt. Hn.Michael (Fulham)	Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)	Mr. William Hamling and
Stoddart, David (Swindon)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)	Mr. John Golding.
NOES
Adley, Robert	Dean, Paul	Hornby, Richard
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Deeds, Rt. Hn. W. F.	Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Digby, Simon Wingfield	Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian	Dixon, Piers	Howell, David (Guildford)
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)	Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Astor, John	Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec	Hunt, John
Atkins, Humphrey	Drayson, G. B.	Hutchison, Michael Clark
Awdry, Daniel	du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Iremonger, T. L.
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Dykes, Hugh	James, David
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Eden, Sir John	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Balniel, Lord	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Jessel, Toby
Batsford, Brian	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Bell, Ronald	Emery, Peter	Jopling, Michael
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Eyre, Reginald	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Farr, John	Kaberry, Sir Donald
Benyon, W.	Fell, Anthony	Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Kershaw, Anthony
Biffen, John	Fidler, Michael	Kilfedder, James
Biggs-Davison, John	Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	Kimball, Marcus
Blakey, Peter	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	Fookes, Miss Janet	King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Body, Richard	Fortescue, Tim	Kinsey, J. R.
Boscawen, Robert	Foster, Sir John	Kirk, Peter
Bossom, Sir Clive	Fowler, Norman	Kitson, Timothy
Bowden, Andrew	Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)	Knox, David
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Fry, Peter	Lambton, Antony
Braine, Bernard	Galbraith, Hn. T. G.	Lane, David
Brewis, John	Gibson-Watt, David	Langford-Holt, Sir John
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Le Marchant, Spencer
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Glyn, Dr. Alan	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Goodhart, Philip	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Bryan, Paul	Goodhew, Victor	Longden, Gilbert
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)	Gorst John	Loveridge, John
Buck, Antony	Gower, Raymond	McAdden, Sir Stephen
	Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Bullus, Sir Eric	Gray, Hamish	MacArthur, Ian
Burden, F. A.	Green, Alan	McCrindle, R. A.
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Grieve, Percy	McLaren, Martin
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn)	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Carlisle, Mark	Grylls, Michael	McMaster, Stanley
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Gummer, Selwyn	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Channon, Paul	Gurden, Harold	McNair-Wilson, Michael
Chapman, Sydney	Hall, Miss Joan (Kelghley)	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Maddan, Martin
Churchill, W. S.	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Madel, David
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Maginnis, John E.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Hannam, John (Exeter)	Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Clegg, Walter	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Marten, Neil
Cockeram, Eric	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Mather, Carol
Cooke, Robert	Haselhurst, Alan	Maude, Angus
Coombs, Derek	Hastings, Stephen	Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Cooper, A. E.	Havers, Michael	Mawby, Ray
Cordle, John	Hayhoe, Barney	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Cormack, Patrick	Heseltine, Michael	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Costain, A. P.	Hicks, Robert	Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Critchley, Julian	Higgins, Terence L.	Miscampbell, Norman
Crouch, David	Hiley, Joseph	Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Curran, Charles	Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Hill, James (Southampton, Test)	Moate, Roger
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)	Holland, Philip	Molyneaux, James
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Holt, Miss Mary	Money, Ernle
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack	Hordern, Peter	Monks, Mrs. Connie

Monro, Hector	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David	Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Montgomery, Fergus	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Tebbit, Norman
More, Jasper	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas	Temple, John M.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Ridsdale, Julian	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffney	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)	Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Mudd, David	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Murton, Oscar	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)	Tilney, John
Neave, Airey	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Nichols, Sir Harmar	Rost, Peter	Trew, Peter
Normanton, Tom	Royle, Anthony	Tugendhat, Christopher
Nott, John	Russell, Sir Ronald	Tinton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Onslow, Cranley	St. John-Stevas, Norman	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally	Scott, Nicholas	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Sharples, Richard	Vickers, Dame Joan
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)	Waddington, David
Page, Graham (Crosby)	Shelton, William (Clapham)	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)	Simeons, Charles	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)	Sinclair, Sir George	Wall, Patrick
Peel, John	Skeet, T. H. H.	Walters, Dennis
Percival, Ian	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)	Ward, Dame Irene
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John	Soref, Harold	Warren, Kenneth
Pike, Miss Mervyn	Speed, Keith	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Pink, R. Bonner	Spence, John	White, Roger (Gravesend)
Pounder, Rafton	Sproat, Iain	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch	Stainton, Keith	Wiggin, Jerry
Price, David (Eastleigh)	Stanbrook, Ivor	Wilkinson, John
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.	Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Proudfoot, Wilfred	Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.	Woodnutt, Mark
Quennell, Miss J. M.	Stokes, John	Worsley, Marcus
Raison, Timothy	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James	Sutcliffe, John	Younger, Hn. George
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter	Tapsell, Peter
Redmond, Robert	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)	Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)	Mr. Bernard Weatherill and
Rees, Peter (Dover)	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)	Mr. Paul Hawkins.

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Houghton

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Motion, in line 7, leave out 'four' and insert 'six'.

The Motion provides for four days to be allotted to Report and Third Reading and the Amendment proposes to increase that to six days. In an effort to regain the respect and affection of the Opposition, the Leader of the House should find this a pushover because it asks for only two more days.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has yet fully estimated the crowded agenda that there will be on Report. In Committee there will be many things which the Secretary of State will promise to reconsider in time for Report. He might even say that some things can be dealt with in another place, though we should prefer them to be dealt with here on Report. If the right hon. Gentleman is in any difficulty about these two days, we will help him find them. We could probably make suggestions in due season how they could be provided, but a modest request like this, after so many disappointments, so many causes for anger that we have had up to now, offers a last opportunity for the Leader of the House to hold out, if not an olive branch, at least an olive leaf in the form of two extra days for Report.

I shall not detain the House longer on this Amendment because I think that the case behind it is so strong that it is bound to be so persuasive to the right hon. Gentleman that he will be able to say that he accepts it. That would go a long way —a little way; I must not jump too far ahead of my hon. and right hon. Friends —shall I say some way, towards overcoming our difficulties. This is a difficult matter, and others of my hon. Friends still have a sense of grievance that they will wish to express, but I hope that the Leader of the House can make the concession we seek.

This small request, though important in itself, is important also by reason of the two extra days on Report—the clearing up stage; the stage for clearing up things that have been left aside during the Committee stage. The concession would save time in Committee. There would be no need to spend too long on some things if the Secretary of State would say, "I will look at this point again before Report." If he is not to have the time on Report there will be little in such a promise, but with a little extra time such a promise could be more effective, and would help our proceedings. I have said enough. I ask the Leader of the House now to say, "I will deliver you these two days, and in some way repay you for, perhaps, the failure to consult at the proper time."

3.22 a.m.

Mr. Whitelaw

I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman's important speech. I thought that four days for Report and Third Reading—one more day than was given to the right hon. Lady's Transport Bill—was a reasonable amount of time. I still hold the view that four days for Report and Third Reading, which may be divided by the Business Committee however it thinks best, is a perfectly reasonable period.

However, I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about the possibility of various Amendments needing to be dealt with on Report, and it may be that after the Committee stage it will be seen that more time on Report would be helpful to the House. The right hon. Gentleman said that he might have some ideas of how more time might be offered by the Opposition and, naturally, I am perfectly prepared to consider on the basis of that proposal whether at some stage, when we have seen how the Committee stage has gone, extra time should be allotted, and how it could be done. I am perfectly prepared to discuss the subject at that stage.

For the moment, I think that four days is correct. I cannot commit myself finally, but in response to the right hon. Gentleman I am perfectly prepared to consider, at the end of the Committee stage, whether extra days should be allotted; to discuss it with the Opposition and to see whether agreement can be reached. On that basis, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.

3.25 a.m.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, North-West)

As a new Member, I say, with respect, that the right hon. Gentleman's concession seems to be more apparent than real. For the right hon. Gentleman to say that in due course he will consider whether it may be possible for him to grant extra time, subject to the possibility of our having to provide the time from Supply Days, does not appear to be any sort of a concession. One would have hoped that we would have had at this stage at least the gift of two more days time so that there could be a feeling in the country and in this House that some extra thought might be given to this Measure on Report.

I approach this matter perhaps a little differently from most of my hon. Friends. I come from that maligned section of the community known as lawyers. I am affected by this legislation because I see here an entirely new court being created to administer entirely new laws, laws which will affect my constituents far more than most of the laws which are now on the Statute Book. These new laws will also affect hon. Members in their individual capacities far more than most laws.

If one is not at all well off, one can get legal aid. If a person is rich, he does not need legal aid and he will get the justice he requires. If, like hon. Members, one comes within the middle income group, one will not get the justice that one needs. This Bill introduces a new court which, on the face of it, will make justice available in specified cases. It introduces new forms of law. It is to be considered by this House, as I see it, practically not at all.

We have, with all the failure of our legal system, an incorruptible judiciary. We have a system of justice of which we are all proud and which is the basis of our freedom. It is founded upon our people having respect for the law which is administered by the courts, and respect for the judges who administer that law. It seems to me that we ought to give careful thought before we create a new court with new judges and with new laws for the court to administer. We ought not to do this without the most careful consideration, which this Bill cannot possibly receive in for the judges who administer that the time allotted to it.

It is all very well for hon. Members to talk about the difficulties and the time involved in the consideration of the Bill. Here we have a piece of legislation of considerable length in which even one word may affect the future and the happiness of many people. May I give an example? In one Clause it is stated that the Industrial Court is to have the power to order the re-engagement of a person who has been unfairly dismissed. This may be right, but what is not right is that the word is "re-engagement" and not "reinstatement". If there is re-engagement, that means that the old engagement ends and a new engagement begins; the period of continuous employment is at an end——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think he will realise that he is straying rather far from the Amendment which we are discussing.

Mr. Janner

I apologise if that is so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am merely pointing out that with one word in this legislation one can have a dispute in this House—indeed, consideration in the House which could result in its change which, in its turn, would affect large numbers of people. If we were concerned with people who wanted redundancy pay which they would not get if there were no continuous employment, we would worry about that word. If we were concerned with the Contracts of Employment Act, which is to be extended, we would worry about the amount by which it is to be extended and the time that is to be given for the consideration of that matter. It may be right that there should be an extension. This is not the sort of provision in this Bill which has received any publicity at all. These are not dramatic Clauses, but they are Clauses which matter to ordinary people in their lives and jobs, but we, as their representatives, will not be able to give the necessary consideration to those matters in the time allowed by the Government.

Earlier in the debate, it was suggested that our indignation was synthetic. That is to misunderstand the worry and anxiety which the Bill gives to trade unionists and all those people upon whose working lives it will have such a great impact. I urge that the Amendment be accepted so as to give just a little more time.

In my constituency, I am happy to say—I am sure that hon. Members on both sides who come from the Leicester area will agree—labour relations are, on the whole, good. The Government are now seeking to introduce a new court, new laws, and new relationships without adequate thought, without adequate care and without adequate time for consideration. This is entirely wrong. At least, they should change their mind to the extent of accepting this Amendment.

3.31 a.m.

Mr. Michael Fidler (Bury and Radcliffe)

I intervene with some reluctance on this Amendment, but I do so out of a plain sense of duty. I am a relative newcomer to the House, but, when I came here not many months ago, I came with a feeling that my mind would be set against guillotines and the curtailment of debate. But, having witnessed the squander-mania of time on so many occasions since last June, and notably in the two days we spent on the first two Clauses of the Bill last week—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish. Sit down!"] Hon. Members might do me the courtesy which I have accorded to them during several hours of debate tonight.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) is not here. He chose to castigate me, quite unwarrantedly, for absenting myself from the debate earlier in the evening although, in fact, I have been present for most of the time. He is not present in the Chamber now, so I shall have to say in his absence what I should have said in his presence. He left the Chamber at 27 minutes past eleven, coincidentally, two minutes after the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) began his speech.

Mr. Orme

What has this got to do with it?

Mr. Fidler

I shall tell the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sillars

On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the hon. Gentleman in order, when he should be speaking to the Amendment, in raising matters in relation to the time when——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Chair will decide what is in order. I have given the hon. Gentleman some latitude, but I hope that he will now come to the point of his remarks in relation to the Amendment.

Mr. Fidler

I referred to those matters because the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) subsequently gave us the fruits of some statistical research which he had done on the question of time spent in debates. He was good enough to give us the Division lists in last week's debate. I shall come rather more up to date. We began our debate at about four o'clock. By the time nine o'clock came, the point at which we had the summing-up by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, there had been 116 minutes taken up by Members from the Government side, 197 minutes taken up by Opposition Members, plus ten minutes taken by the spokesman for the Liberal Party, which means that the time had been taken earlier in the debate roughly in the ratio of two to one as between Opposition and Government.

Mr. Clinton Davis

The hon. Gentleman is rapidly acquiring a reputation as a merchant of misrepresentation. Does he not understand the difference between a guillotine Motion and a Bill of vast constitutional importance?

Mr. Fidler

Yes, I do. Not only do I realise the vital importance of the Bill but I realise also that an invitation was extended earlier last year to representatives of the trade unions to consider these matters. I do not recognise Members of Parliament as representatives of the trade unions. We are all representatives of the constituencies which sent us here. The trade unions were invited to offer their opinions on a certain consultative document. One would have expected that opportunity to be taken.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Amendment is much narrower, and refers to the future rather than the past.

Mr. Fidler

I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What I am trying to say in my somewhat inexperienced way is that those who are saying that there is insufficient time to debate the Bill have forgotten that when time was available advantage was not taken of it by those to whom it was available.

The hon. Member for West Ham, North, has entertained us once again to a knock-about performance. He repeated the cliché that the Opposition's job is to oppose. Accepting that, I say that the Government's job is to govern, and the Government were elected with a mandate to introduce this legislation. They had explained it to the people in considerable detail over three years.

The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) has suggested that best advantage would come from the Bill if we had presented to the trade unions and others involved all the desirable things that it could achieve. That was the first time in the debate over last week and this week that a finger was put on the real point. For too long we have had gibes from the Opposition about cutting prices at a stroke. It is forgotten that there is in the country an element that hopes to see government by a strike. On occasion that element has been aided and abetted by Labour hon. Members, who drew attention earlier to threats of general strike and the like. This is not conducive to those better industrial relationships which they say they want.

We spent two days last week discussing but two Clauses. We have been sent here to put the Bill on the Statute Book, so I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will resist the temptation to filibuster, to which so many have succumbed tonight. I hope that they will instead support the very co-operative gesture of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who said that he was prepared to discuss through perhaps somewhat unsual channels extra time for debate. If that is accepted by the Opposition spokesmen, let us leave it at that. If not, let us go to the Division Lobbies as soon as possible and put an end to this further example of filibustering.

3.39 a.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard (Barons Court)

The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) will forgive me if I do not follow him in some of the rather more hysterical highways and by-ways of his speech. As someone who has been in the House slightly longer than he has—I think about six years longer—I can tell him that he will have to learn that Oppositions are entitled to talk if nothing else. One thing Government back benchers will have to suffer from time to time is sitting and waiting while Opposition Members talk. From time to time the hon. Gentleman may find this annoying, frustrating and rather time-consuming, and he may lose a lot of sleep over it. I promise him that from this Opposition he will get a great deal of trouble in this regard.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Is my hon. Friend not—unwittingly at this hour—unconsciously misleading the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler)? My hon. Friend says that the hon. Gentleman will have to stay and listen. The hon. Gentleman does not have to stay. He can go home to bed whenever he likes.

Mr. Richard

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is an old Parliamentarian, and he is right. I am sure that if the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe prefers to go home to bed, none of us will miss him.

I do not think that Parliament has done itself very much good in the last 24 hours and the responsibility for that lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Leader of the House by his action in putting a timetable on a Bill of this sort. He has so affronted opinion on this side of the House—he must have known that he would do so—that the sort of explosion and debate we have seen were inevitable. If he did not realise that at the time he introduced the Motion, then he is extraordinarily insensitive to the emotions and feelings on this side of the House; if he is that insensitive, perhaps he should not be doing the job he is supposed to be doing.

We have had four different reasons from the Government about why the Motion was introduced, all of them contradictory. I asked the Leader of the House earlier at what moment of time he had decided that the Motion should be introduced. He said that he had decided on it after he had seen the lack of progress which had been made on the first two days in Committee. That is what he said. Whether he is right or not, I do not know, but that was his answer. No doubt hon. Members can read it in HANSARD tomorrow. In reply to our first Amendment——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is now straying rather far from the exact terms of the Amendment and I hope that he will come back to them very soon.

Mr. Richard

I promise you that I will not stray too far, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that I will come back. But since the Leader of the House has said, on this Amendment, "Trust me and I will take your views into consideration", it is important to make it clear why it is that we find difficulty in trusting him when he says that sort of thing after all the contradictions we have heard in the reasons for the Motion.

The second reason the right hon. Gentleman gave us for his decision to introduce the Motion was the pressure on parliamentary time. He said that he realised that the pressure would be so great that he would have to curtail discussion on the Bill. Was that before Christmas? If it were, would it not have been more honest of him to discuss the matter through the usual channels with the Opposition? Why did he not?

The third reason, which we got from the Secretary of State, was, "We realised that we would have to guillotine the Bill when we heard the speeches in this House last November and saw and heard some of the things the Official Opposition spokesmen said about the Bill outside the House." Again, if that were the position, why did the right hon. Gentleman not consult us?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must return to the rather narrow terms of the Amendment, as I am sure he now intends to do.

Mr. Richard

So far we have had three contradictory versions from the Leader of the House as to why the guillotine Motion is necessary. With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would seem to me that if we put down an Amendment to a guillotine Motion we are entitled to say to the House that the reasoning which lies behind the original Motion is reasoning which the House should not accept. We are also entitled, with respect, to say that, because of the contradiction from Government spokesmen, we should treat the honeyed words that fall from the Leader of the House with extreme caution. The real contradiction in what the Leader of the House has told us lies in the fact that both he and the Secretary of State accepted that the two days so far spent in Committee——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I must draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Amendment requires a much narrower discussion than that on which he is now embarking.

Mr. Richard

I now want to relate it specifically.

If we behave on Report in the way in which the Leader of the House said originally we had behaved in Committee, there could be no answer to our claim for the two days. The Leader of the House and the Secretary of State have said there has been no undue delay by the Opposition in the first two days in Committee. If those words mean anything, they must mean that such delay as there has been was reasonable in all the circumstances of the Bill. If that is so, the request for an extension of the Report stage to six rather than four days must be regarded as reasonable for the Government to accept.

Mr. Derek Coombs (Birmingham, Yardley)

The hon. Gentleman shows remarkable insensitivity. If both Front Benches have put out olive branches, why do we not leave it at that?

Mr. Richard

I am delighted to answer the hon. Gentleman. If the Leader of the House this evening had genuinely offered an olive branch to us, I would be delighted to sit down. But the way in which he has behaved in the last few days does not encourage us to accept his words at face value. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I hold him in high regard and knows my opinion of him as an individual, but I would submit that in the last week he has not played fair with the Opposition. In these circumstances, for him to get up and say, "Trust me and I will see you all right", is something we cannot accept. If he is prepared to go a little further than he has done in regard not merely to the matter of further discussion and consideration but to the promise of further time on Report, I shall be delighted to sit down. But if he cannot go further than that, then I am sorry to say that I cannot trust him on this matter.

3.48 a.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough (Jarrow)

It is difficult to understand why the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State have dug their toes in on this matter, when at this late stage, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Coombs) suggested, they could have offered us a real olive branch. When the Bill has had ten days in Committee, we shall not know what will be the feelings of the country or how angry the trade unions will be because of the lack of concession and consideration. We do not even know whether the Government would be prepared to give two more days at that stage. My hon. Friends have asked for a total of 36 days on the Bill and the Amendment would give us 16, if the Government gladly made available the two extra days of which the right hon. Gentleman has been speaking.

I cannot understand the Leader of the House. I remember when he announced the Committee stage and was asked whether it would be taken on the Floor of the House. When he said that it would, there was great joy and laughter on the Government benches, because it was to be the full glare of publicity on which the Government were to rely for popular support. They believed that the Bill was one of the most popular pieces of legislation ever to come before the country. They thought that great political capital was to be made out of it.

But we have seen what has happened. In the last week, an opinion poll may have had some effect. The Government now know that the more the Bill is discussed on the Floor of the House and the more it is publicised, the greater the anger of the millions who will be affected. The Government have completely changed their tune. They want the Bill out of the way as quickly as possible, but they are still determined not to make any concessions.

I do not know whether the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State are being pushed from behind. They seem to have become as irrational and unreasonable about this argument as the Prime Minister has been while in Singapore discussing arms for South Africa. He dug his toes in and would not make any concessions; equally, the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House have dug their toes in about the Bill. I hope that they will reflect on what my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said about an hour ago.

They are seeking the authority of the House to introduce legislation which is more reactionary and liberty-denying to the men and women who will be affected by it than any measure which has been brought to the House in the lifetime of the oldest Member of the House. Nothing comparable with this Bill has been brought before the House in the living memory of its oldest Member. The Bill is offensive enough, but to bring in a guillotine and to refuse to extend the number of days available to discuss the Bill in Committee, and having steamrollered that through, to sit there resolutely refusing to make a concession of two more days for Report is the height of irresponsibility.

We are told how generous it will be that one-third of parliamentary time will be devoted to the Bill. But this is one of the greatest constitutional Measures of this century. It ought to be given adequate discussion. Men and women can go to prison and be fined under it in circumstances which never applied to them before. In the end, the final sanction must be imprisonment.

Mr. Dudley Smith

indicated dissent.

Mr. Scott

Would the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) say under which provision of the Bill anyone can be fined?

Mr. Fernyhough

I can, and I will gladly deal with that. What is the purpose? What other sanction can there be?

Hon. Members

Answer the question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) will recognise, as the Chair recognises, that both the question and an answer would be out of order.

Mr. Fernyhough

The Government felt that they were being generous in giving one-third of parliamentary time to the Bill. Let us examine the position. If I had interrupted the Leader of the House about an hour ago and asked him to say what the date of the Summer Recess would be, he could have given me a completely truthful answer. He has already decided when the House will rise for the Summer Recess.

Mr. Whitelaw

I can give the hon. Gentleman the categoric answer that I have not the slightest idea.

Mr. Fernyhough

Everybody knows that we shall not be here on 11th August, and everybody knows why. There will be grouse shooting—but not for hon. Members on this side of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman has not decided, what would be wrong in saying, "All right, instead of the House rising on 25th, 26th or 28th July, we will make it 1st or 2nd August", so that not only the Opposition but the millions of trade unionists who will be affected by the Bill know that at least, after final appeal, the right hon. Gentleman made a little miserly concession?

I ask him to make it for one reason. He and his right hon. Friends are in a hell of a mess; the country is in a hell of a mess. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen must understand that they can only begin to begin overcoming the problems with which they are surrounded provided that they have the co-operation of the industrial workers. The trade unions have made it clear that they hate and detest this Measure——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is again straying rather wide of the Amendment, which is quite narrow.

Mr. Fernyhough

I hope that I have made clear that I want a couple of days in August. If this were given it would reduce, although not remove, the anxiety and apprehension of the workers who will be affected by the Bill.

What I was about to say was that the Government ought to know that they can begin to tackle the economic, financial and other problems, begin to see a little daylight, only if they have the full co-operation of the unions. It is the men and women in the mines, the factories, the fields, the schools, who will be the victims and upon whom the Government must depend to a large extent to solve the nation's problems. Therefore, I ask the Leader of the House, even at this late hour, to undo some of the evil work he has done and to make this little concession. Let him give us a clear promise that the two extra days we seek will be forthcoming for this unwelcome Bill.

4.2 a.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Willesden, West)

In supporting this Amendment most of my hon. Friends are trying to make some impression upon the Leader of the House. In some ways it is a compliment to him because he has built up a reputation as a Leader of the House with some understanding of his job not only in looking after the Government business but in understanding the rights of the minority in this House. A small concession by the right hon. Gentleman would at least give us some hope that he has not entirely deserted the reputation he has built up. Most of us have learned to respect the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend who has an extremely difficult task. It is precisely because of this that on a fundamental issue like this we want him to understand that we cannot discharge our duties properly because we have inadequate time.

I have had the privilege of sitting through long debates on guillotine Motions under Governments of both parties. One basic difference about this occasion is that this is arousing our ire, not only on political points but as House of Commons men. We feel thoroughly frustrated and unable to do the job we were sent here to do—in terms of using the procedures of this House, especially on Report—owing to the changes that have taken place in the last 10 years. Under each holder of the office of Mr. Speaker the situation has differed. Sir Harry Hylton-Foster was much stricter, in terms of the amount of time allowed on Report for matters that had already been discussed in Committee. In the last six years it has become the custom that on Report we can deal not only with much of the material that has gone through in Committee but, in a Bill of such major importance as this, can pick up a number of things that have emerged in the country.

We have had a surprisingly non-committal reply from the right hon. Gentleman—quite out of character for him. This is a matter in respect of which he could say, "I am not so inflexible that I cannot recognise the argument." In respect of matters that are likely to arise on the extra two days, I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention and that of his right hon. Friends to the different treatment that has been given to the question of discussing with interests outside the way in which the Bill should be dealt with in the House.

On the question of consultation with the T.U.C. a different situation has arisen since we started on the Bill. It is one thing for the T.U.C. but another for the British Medical Association, in terms of pay for the doctors. The Clauses that we shall be discussing on Report will have a great effect on the situation, and yet the discussion of the whole question will be curtailed by the guillotine Motion.

Mr. Swain

On a point of order. It is very difficult to hear on the Front Bench because one hon. Member is making his maiden snore. It is very disturbing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Such sounds did not reach the Chair.

Mr. Pavitt

I am sorry. If there is anyone in the House who cannot hear it is me. I am wearing two hearing aids.

The whole question of the relationship of the House to places outside it and to the professional organisations will be touched on on Report. The right hon. Gentleman should concede the two days for which we are asking.

I come from an industrial constituency. I have all the trade unions and industries in it. When the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) wants to look at telephones he comes to Associated Automation, in my constituency. Viscount Boyd of Merton, a previous Tory Minister, is Chairman of Guinness, which is in my constituency. McVitie & Price is in my constituency. I have everybody there. I shall be put under considerable pressure not only in Committee but on Report, in respect of questions which we shall not have time to pick up. I have a responsibility to discharge my duty to trade unionists in my constituency—trade unionists who have not had such a square deal as the doctors have had.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that when right hon. or hon. Members get to the Front Bench one of two things can happen: either they grow or they swell. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has grown since he has been occupying the Front Bench, first on this side and now on the other. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to grow bigger tonight in his approach and to come up to the kind of leadership of the House which we expect of him. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to be such an adamant opponent of the right of free speech of the minority to put their case properly, not only as party politicians, but as good House of Commons men.

4.11 a.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis

Even as a new Member one does not have to be a seer to recognise that Report stage will be very crowded indeed. The reasonable request which the Opposition make tonight for two extra days on Report puts to the test the good faith of the Leader of the House which, unhappily, in the last week or so has suffered.

The two extra days for which we are asking could easily be provided by cutting down the Easter Recess by two days. Why should it be at the expense of the Opposition by using two Supply Days, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested?

Earlier, when I intervened in the right hon. Gentleman's speech—he was good enough to give way to me—I commented upon the length of our holidays. This is a matter for comment in the country. Rightly or wrongly, people say that this House enjoys long holidays. We had thirteen and a half weeks for the Summer Recess. It is not enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that this was balanced up by the unusually short Christmas Recess.

If the Government have business of the utmost importance they must make provision for it. One way is by cutting down—not very significantly—on the recesses which we have. I do not know how long the Easter Recess will be. I gather that it is usually between three and four weeks —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Whatever it is, two days out of that recess would not matter vitally compared with the importance of the Government's programme in this regard. If the right hon. Gentleman's good faith is to be meaningful, this is a concession which he ought to make tonight.

I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the strength of opinion in the working-class movement. The right hon. Gentleman is totally insensitive to it, because he does not go to the kind of meetings which we address. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that this does not matter. It matters vitally, because Parliament is on trial at every meeting which we attend. At the moment, because of this gap, the working-class movement finds that Parliament is wanting.

The concession for which we ask was put in moderate terms by my right hon Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr Houghton). Unfortunately, the right hon Gentleman chose to resist that.

It is not too late even now, and I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have second thoughts, because if he does not the consequences can be alarming indeed. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be big enough, as my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) suggested, to represent once again the sort of Leader of the House which I, as a new Member—[Interruption.] Do I gather that another gag is to be put on the debate?

Mr. Whitelaw

No.

Mr. Davis

If the right hon. Gentleman is going to make the concession for which we are asking, I shall be delighted to sit down.

Several hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Whitelaw.

Mr, Whitelaw

I think that it might help the debate——

Mr. Orme

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I thought that you had called me.

Mr. Speaker

No. Mr. Whitelaw.

Mr. Whitelaw

I think that it might help the debate if I reply to the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) who made a conciliatory suggestion about time, and I responded, as I thought, in a conciliatory way.

The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) is entitled to say, and I do not resent it, that he has no reason, and nor has any other hon. Gentleman on the benches opposite, to trust what I say after what they feel has happened over the last few days. If that is what they feel, they are entitled to take that view.

Having considered very carefully what has been said further in the debate, and as a gesture at the end of the very long debate on this guillotine Motion, I have decided that the right course to adopt—and I take the point about the Report stage—is to advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Division No. 72.]	AYES	[4.18 a.m.
Adley, Robert	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Kinsey, J. R.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)	Kirk, Peter
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian	Emery, Peter	Kitson, Timothy
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)	Eyre, Reginald	Knox, David
Astor, John	Farr, John	Lambton, Antony
Atkins, Humphrey	Fell, Anthony	Lane, David
Awdry, Daniel	Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Langford-Holt, Sir John
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Fidler, Michael	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	Le Marchant, Spencer
Balniel, Lord	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Batsford, Brian	Fookes, Miss Janet	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Fortescue, Tim	Longden, Gilbert
Bell, Ronald	Foster, Sir John	Loveridge, John
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Fowler, Norman	McAdden, Sir Stephen
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Fraser,Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford & Stone)	MacArthur, Ian
Benyon, W.	Fry, Peter	McCrindle, R. A.
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Galbraith, Hn. T. G.	McLaren, Martin
Biffen, John	Gibson-Watt, David	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Biggs-Davison, John	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	McMaster, Stanley
Blaker, Peter	Gilmour, Sir Jahn (Fife, E.)	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	Glyn, Dr. Alan	McNair-Wilson, Michael
Body, Richard	Goodhart, Philip	Mc-Nair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Boscawen, Robert	Gorst, John	Maddan, Martin
Bossom, Sir Clive	Gower, Raymond	Madel, David
Bowden, Andrew	Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Maginnis, John E.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Gray, Hamish	Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
	Green, Alan	Marten, Neil
Braine, Bernard	Grieve, Percy	Mather, Carol
Brewis, John	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Maude, Angus
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Grylls, Michael	Mawby, Ray
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Gummer, Selwyn	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Gurden, Harold	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Bryan, Paul	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Miscampbell, Norman
Buchanan-Smith Alick(Angus,N&M)	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Buck, Antony	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Bullus, Sir Eric	Hannam, John (Exeter)	Moate, Roger
Burden, F. A.	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Molyneaux, James
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Money, Ernle
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn)	Haselhurst, Alan	Monks, Mrs. Connie
Carlisle, Mark	Hastings, Stephen	Monro, Hector
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Havers, Michael	Montgomery, Fergus
Channon, Paul	Hawkins, Paul	More, Jasper
Chapman, Sydney	Hayhoe, Barney	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	Heseltine, Michael	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Churchill, W. S.	Hicks, Robert	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Higgins, Terence L.	Mudd, David
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Hiley, Joseph	Murton, Oscar
Clegg, Walter	Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Neave, Airey
Cockeram, Eric	Hill, James (Southampton, Test)	Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Cookem Robert	Holland, Philip	Normanton, Tom
Coombs, Derek	Holt, Miss Mary	Nott, John
Cooper, A. E.	Hordern, Peter	Onslow, Cranley
Cordle, John	Hornby, Richard	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Cormack, Patrick	Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Costain, A. P.	Howell, David (Guildford)	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Critchley, Julian	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Crouch, David	Hunt, John	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Curran, Charles	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Iremonger, T. L.	Peel, John
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)	James, David	Percival, Ian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Pike, Miss Mervyn
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack	Jessel, Toby	Pink, R. Bonner
Dean, Paul	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Pounder, Rafton
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Jopling, Michael	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Dixon, Piers	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Prior, Rt. Hn. J.M.L.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Proudfoot, Wilfred
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec	Kellett, Mrs. Elaine	Prior, Rt. Hn. Francis
Drayson, G. B.	Kershaw, Anthony	Quennell, Miss J. M.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Kilfedder, James	Raison, Timothy
Dykes, Hugh	Kimball, Marcus	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Eden, Sir John	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 252.

Redmond, Robert	Sproat, Iain	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)	Stainton, Keith	Vickers, Dame Joan
Rees, Peter (Dover)	Stanbrook, Ivor	Waddington, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David	Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.	Wall, Patrick
Ridsdale, Julian	Stokes, John	Walters, Dennis
Rippon, Rt. Hn, Geoffrey	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom	Ward, Dame Irene
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)	Sutcliffe, John	Warren, Kenneth
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Tapsell, Peter	Weatherill, Bernard
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Rost, Peter	Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)	White, Roger (Gravesend)
Royle, Anthony	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Russell, Sir Ronald	Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)	Wiggin, Jerry
St. John-Stevas, Norman	Tebbit, Norman	Wilkinson, John
Scott, Nicholas	Temple, John M.	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Sharples, Richard	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)	Woodnutt, Mark
Shelton, William (Clapham)	Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)	Worsley, Marcus
Simeons, Charles	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Sinclair, Sir George	Tilney, John	Younger, Hn. George
Skeet, T. H. H.	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)	Trew, Peter	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Soref, Harold	Tugenedhat, Christopher	Mr. Victor Goodhew and
Speed, Keith	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.	Mr. Hugh Rossi.
Spence, John	van Straubenzee, W. R.
NOES
Abse, Leo	Delargy, H. J.	Hunter, Adam
Albu, Austen	Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Janner, Greville
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Dempsey, James	Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)
Alldritt, Walter	Doig, Peter	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Dormant, J. D.	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Ashton, Joe	Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	John, Brynmor
Atkinson, Norman	Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Duffy, A. E. P.	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Barnes, Michael	Dunn, James A.	Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Barnett, Joel	Dunnett, Jack	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Heaney, Alan	Eadie, Alex	Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Edelman, Maurice	Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Bidwell, Sydney	Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Bishop, E. S.	Ellis, Tom	Kaufman, Gerald
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Evans, Fred	Kelley, Richard
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Fernyhough, E.	Kerr, Russell
Booth, Albert	Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)	Kinnock, Neil
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Lambie, David
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Lamond, James
Bradley, Tom	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Latham, Arthur
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)	Foley, Maurice	Lawson, George
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Foot, Michael	Leonard, Dick
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Ford, Ben	Lestor, Miss Joan
Buchan, Norman	Forrester, John	Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Fraser, John (Norwood)	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Freeson, Reginald	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Galpern, Sir Myer	Lipton, Marcus
Cant, R. B.	Garrett, W. E.	Loughlin, Charles
Carmichael, Neil	Gilbert, Dr. John	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)	Ginsburg, David	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Golding, John	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	McBride, Neil
Clark, David (Come Valley)	Gourlay, Harry	McCartney, Hugh
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Grant, George (Morpeth)	McElhone, Frank
Cohen, Stanley	Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	McGuire, Michael
Coleman, Donald	Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Mackenzie, Gregor
Concannon, J. D.	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Mackie, John
Conlan, Barnard	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Mackintosh, John P.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	Maclennan, Robert
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Crawshaw, Richard	Hardy, Peter	McNamara, J. Kevin
Cronin, John	Harper, Joseph	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)	Hart, Rt. Hn, Judith	Marks, Kenneth
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitchaven)	Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	Marquand, David
Dalyell, Tam	Heffer, Eric S.	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Darling, Rt. Hn. George	Hilton, W. S.	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Davidson, Arthur	Horam, John	Mayhew, Christopher
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Meacher, Michael
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Huckfield, Leslie	Mendelson, John
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Mikardo, Ian
Deakins, Eric	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Millan, Bruce
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Miller, Dr. M. S.

Milne, Edward (Blyth)	Reed, D. (Sedgefield)	Swain, Thomas
Molloy, William	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)	Taverne, Dick
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Rhodes, Geoffrey	Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Richard, Ivor	Thomas, Jeffery (Abertillery
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)	Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)	Tinn, James
Moyle, Roland	Robertson, John (Paisley)	Tomney, Frank
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)	Torney, Tom
Murray, Ronald King	Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)	Urwin, T. W.
Ogden, Eric	Roper, John	Varley, Eric G.
O'Halloran, Michael	Rose, Paul B.	Wainwright, Edwin
O'Malley, Brian	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)	Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Oram, Bert	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Orbach, Maurice	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)	Wallace, George
Orme, Stanley	Short, Rt. Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)	Watkins, David
	Silkin, Rt Hn. John (Deptford)	Weitzman, David
Oswald, Thomas	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)	Wellbeloved, James
Owen, Dt. David (Plymouth, Sutton)	Sillars, James	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Padley, Walter	Silverman, Julius	Whitehead, Phillip
Palmer, Arthur	Skinner, Dennis	Whitlock, William
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	Small, William	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Pavitt, Laurie	Spearing, Nigel	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred	Spriggs, Leslie	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Pendry, Tom	Stallard, A. W.	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Pentland, Norman	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Perry Ernest G.	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.	Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Prescott, John	Strang, Gavin	Mr. Ernest Armstrong and
Price, William (Rugby)	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.	Mr. William Hamling.
Probert, Arthur	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley