COUNTER-INFLATION (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL. (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

HC Deb 14 November 1972 vol 846 cc215-64

3.32 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior)

I beg to move, That the following provisions shall apply to the further Proceedings on the Bill:—

Committee, Report, Third Reading and Consideration of Lords Amendment

1.—(1) The Proceedings in Committee shall be completed in three allotted days and shah he brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the following table:—

TABLE
Allotted day	Proceedings	Time for conclusion of proceedings
First day	Clause 1	11.00 p.m
Second day	Clause 2—Amendments before subsection (2)	7.00 p.m.
	Clause 2—Amendments before subsection (4)	11.00 p.m
Third day	Remainder of Clause 2 and Clause 3	7.00 p.m.
	Clause 4	9.00 p.m.
	Remaining proceedings, in Committee	11.00 p.m.

(2) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion on that day at Nine o'clock, in the case of Proceedings on Consideration, and Eleven o'clock, in the case of Proceedings on Third Reading; but if there are no Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, Proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion at Six o'clock.

(3) The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Five o'clock on that day.

2. Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order so far as it relates to Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration or on Third Reading of the Bill

Proceedings on going into Committee

3. When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question, notwithstanding that notice of an Instruction has been given.

Order of Proceedings in Committee

4. No Motion shall he made to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule.

Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business shall apply to the Proceedings on the Bill for one hour after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period under this paragraph.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under this paragraph, and the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall also be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion.

Standing Order No. 13

8. Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business) shall not apply on an allotted day.

Private Business

9. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill, or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings.

This paragraph shall not apply to an allotted day on which Proceedings on Third Reading of the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at Six o'clock or Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments are to be brought to a conclusion at Five o'clock.

Conclusions of Proceedings

10.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(b) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;

(c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded; and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If, at Seven o'clock on an allotted day, any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.

(4) If a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over to Seven o'clock on an allotted day, or to any later time under sub-paragraph (3) above, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day at any hour falling after the beginning of the Proceedings on that Motion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

11.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and the last foregoing paragraph shall apply as if the Proceedings were Proceedings on the Bill on an allotted day.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

12. Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order, or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that clay.

Re-committal

13.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading included references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall he permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

14. In this Order—

'allotted day' means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the Proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed to on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;

'the Bill' means the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill.

I base my case for this timetable Motion upon the urgency of the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill.

I think there would be general acceptance that there are occasions on which a timetable Motion is both appropriate and necessary. Sometimes there is such general agreement on both sides of the House that it is in the interest of the House and the nation that a time limit should be set for debate on a particular measure that a voluntary timetable can be agreed upon. On other occasions, for reasons which the whole House will entirely understand, it is not possible for the Opposition to agree to a voluntary timetable, and it may then become necessary for the Government of the day to propose a timetable Motion to the House.

I think that there would be general agreement that such a procedure is sometimes needed. Equally, all hon. Members on both sides of the House would rightly expect the Leader of the House to weigh with the utmost care the claims of his ministerial colleagues as to the urgency of the Government business in question against the risk of any erosion of Parliament's right and duty to give itself adequate time to scrutinise the proposals of the Executive. I assure the House that I regard it as my most important responsibility to safeguard the rights of proper debate and that I should commend a timetable Motion to the House only if I were convinced of its necessity. On this occasion I believe that many hon. Members would recognise the strength of the case for a timetable Motion.

On 8th November the House gave a Second Reading to the Bill, which provides for a short standstill period for prices, incomes, rents and dividends. The standstill is urgently needed to provide a period during which the Government can bring before the House longer-term measures to achieve faster growth in national output and real incomes, an improvement in the relative position of the lower paid, and moderation in the rate of cost and price inflation.

These objectives were agreed by both sides of industry during the recent tripartite talks. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we shall stand ready to discuss our proposals for the next phase with both the TUC and the CBI, and, if possible, we shall seek to reach agreement on them. We shall do so because the proposals will be designed to work towards the objectives on which we were all agreed in the tripartite talks. I am sure that the whole House shares these objectives and hopes that agreement will be reached on the means of implementing them. If, however, tripartite agreement continues to elude us, my right hon. Friend has made it clear that responsibility rests with the Government and that we accept that responsibility.

When agreement in the tripartite talks proved impossible, it became necessary to establish a standstill period quickly to give us time to bring forward our longer-term measures for implementing our agreed objectives. We had to act quickly, and I believe that the overwhelming majority of the country is behind us in what we are doing. That is why the standstill had to come into effect with the introduction of the Bill.

All of us now want to get started, as quickly as possible, on the achievement of our longer-term objectives. That is what the standstill is designed to facilitate, and that is one major reason why the Bill is so urgently needed.

Moreover, the standstill runs for 90 days after Parliament agrees to the enactment of the Bill. That is an added reason for getting the Bill quickly, on which all hon. Members may find it possible to agree.

There is another important reason for enacting the Bill quickly. Now that the standstill has been announced, many firms, organisations and individuals have made it clear that they are ready to observe it. They have done so because they are rightly persuaded that it is in the interest of the whole nation that everyone should observe this standstill. It would be most unfair to them to prolong any uncertainty about the legal position.

Mr. Denis Healey (Leeds, East)

I understand the right hon. Gentleman is hanging his case on the need to get the standstill over as fast as possible. Will he assure the House that the Government have no intention of making use of the provision in the Bill to prolong the standstill beyond the initial 90 days? If not, I suggest that the whole of his argument so far has been dishonest.

Mr. Prior

The right hon. Gentleman is totally wrong. If it were necessary to move the order to extend the Bill for a further 60 days, the quicker the Bill is enacted, even in that case, the quicker the measure comes to an end. Therefore, exactly the same argument applies. It does not in any way invalidate the argument for urgency. It is therefore essential that a standstill, once announced, should. as quickly as possible, be seen to be binding on everyone.

There are three main reasons why the passage of the Bill is so urgently needed: first, the urgency of establishing the standstill to give us the opportunity to bring forward our longer-term measures for achieving faster growth, for improving the relative position of the lower paid, and for moderating the rate of inflation; secondly, the desirability that the standstill should, as soon as possible, be replaced by the introduction of our measures to achieve these agreed objectives; and, thirdly, the importance that the standstill, once announced, should rapidly be seen to be binding on everyone. It is therefore on this need for urgency that I base my main argument for this timetable Motion.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter (The Hartlepools)

The right hon. Gentleman says that the standstill should be binding on everyone. Will it be able to work and be enforceable on everyone?

Mr. Prior

That is the principle underlying the Bill. This is what we are to discuss in Committee. I am convinced that it is the wish of the vast majority of the people in this country that the Bill should act fairly on everyone during the standstill period.

The whole purpose of the standstill is to give us a breathing space to bring in a longer-term agreement. I believe that the whole country is now fed up with increases in prices and wages which merely follow each other in a vicious spiral. One of the aims of the Bill is to prevent that, and I am certain that for that reason it has had a good response in the country.

I would go so far as to suggest that many even of those who take a different view of the legislation now before the House would recognise that such legislation, once embarked upon, has to be proceeded with very urgently. It might have been possible, under different circumstances, to have agreed upon a voluntary timetable. Unfortunately, that was not possible, and I understand why. Equally, I am satisfied that in the absence of such agreement it was my clear duty to propose a timetable Motion to the House, and I now wish to turn to the details of what is proposed.

First, and most importantly, it is proposed to take the Committee Stage on the Floor of the House, and I believe that that would be the wish of the great majority of hon. Members, not only because the intrinsic importance of the Bill makes it appropriate to do so but also because it will enable a much wider range of Members to express their views on the Bill than would otherwise have been possible.

Secondly, once it was clear that a timetable Motion was needed, I am sure that we were right to introduce it at this early stage in the House's consideration of the Bill. It is not at all unique to propose a timetable Motion before embarking on the Committee Stage. This has been done on three previous occasions since the war, and on quite a number of occasions before the war. In fact, as I remarked last Thursday, we now have an even distribution of such occasions between the parties.

The great advantage of considering a timetable Motion at this early stage is that we can ensure that the debates in Committee are reasonably apportioned between the Clauses of the Bill. In this way we can avoid the risk of devoting too large a part of our discussion to only a very limited part of the proposals. The provisions in the timetable Motion will ensure that we have three days, less any time which we may spend on the consideration of this Motion, for the consideration of the Bill in Committee. We shall then have a further day for the Report Stage, if the Bill is amended in Committee, and for the Third Reading. Should there be no Report Stage, we propose that the debate on Third Reading should end at 6 p.m.

Having regard to the urgency of the Bill, I think that the allocation of time we have proposed is appropriate. While the Bill is important, it is not by any means lengthy. It comprises 10 comparatively short clauses and one schedule. Nor would I suggest that either the clauses or the schedule are particularly complex.

The proposal is that, in Committee, the first day should be allocated to consideration of Clause 1; the second day should be allocated to the consideration of Clause 2 as far as amendments before subsection (4), with amendments before subsection (2) occupying us until seven o'clock: and the third day should be allocated to the remaining proceedings in Committee, with the remainder of Clause 2 and Clause 3 occupying us until seven o'clock, and Clause 4 until nine o'clock. It is proposed that on each of the allocated days we should go on until eleven o'clock. I feel sure that it is right to allocate so much of our time to the very important Clause 2, which deals with the standstill on prices, pay, dividends and rents, and provides power for the appropriate Minister to make orders or notices for this purpose.

So far as Clause 1 is concerned, perhaps I might be allowed to make the point that if we do not this afternoon prolong too far our consideration of this timetable Motion we shall leave ourselves that much more time for consideration of the Clause. Perhaps I should add that it is always open to the House to make more rapid progress on an earlier Clause if it wishes to do so, thereby leaving more time for the consideration of later Clauses.

Mr. Clinton Davis (Hackney, Central)

Is there not a real possibility that the proposal to conclude our proceedings at eleven o'clock each day will prove unduly restrictive? Why is it necessary to conclude our proceedings at that hour? Is the right hon. Gentleman anxious to get his weary back benchers home, and cause them to be less riled than they might otherwise be?

Mr. Prior

I do not believe that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will think that that is the real reason. It is generally for the convenience of the House that we end at about eleven o'clock, and this. is the time that we have proposed. I hope very much that the House will not wish to indulge itself in too many all-night sessions, which I do not think are greatly to the advantage of the House. What we have proposed is a sensible and civilised way of conducting our affairs I might also add, by way of passing reference, that one's experience of the House is that what is said after eleven o'clock is not necessarily the wisest, and that we generally conduct our business better before eleven o'clock than afterwards.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)

So far, 94 amendments have been tabled to the Bill, 47 of them to Clause 2. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the time he has allocated to Clause 2 will be sufficient for satisfactory debates on 47 amendments, plus a debate on whether the Clause should stand part of the Bill, bearing in mind that this is the nub of the measure, and that many hon. Members will wish to make further amendments to it, for example, to deal with charges in old people's homes in Manchester?

Mr. Prior

I should have thought, in that case, that the right thing to do is to get on pretty quickly, to get through Clause 1 at an early stage today, and proceed to Clause 2. We have already allocated to Clause 2 not only the whole of tomorrow, but up to seven o'clock on Thursday. If we proceed more quickly today, there is no reason why we should not start on Clause 2 this afternoon or this evening. I believe that the time allocated on the Floor of the House to what is an important but simple measure is very fair and gives an adequate chance for all the relevant points to be considered.

The more detailed provisions of the Motion are common form on these occasions. Having regard to the overriding need for urgency in dealing with the evils of inflation, I believe that the proposals contained in the Motion provide adequate opportunities for debate on the Bill. There will, of course, be many opportunities in the future for debating the Government's longer-term policies for the achievement of the objectives agreed in the tripartite talks.

I am therefore convinced that the Motion is fully justified in terms of the national interest; that it provides the framework for adequate parliamentary debate on the Bill; and that it will be recognised here and elsewhere as a further proof of the Government's resolution to deal urgently and fairly with the problems of inflation. I commend the Motion to the House.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Denis Healey (Leeds, East)

Ministers who propose guillotine Motions rarely succeed in making brilliant speeches, but the Leader of the House this afternoon was more limp and lacklustre in his argument than anyone else I can recall. Half the time he was arguing that we have to get the Bill through quickly because it is such a good thing and is popular, but the other half of the time he was arguing that we have to get it over as quickly as this because it is so unfair and unjust and the Government must have an opportunity to introduce as fast as possible the wonderful new legislation on prices and incomes about which, after threatening for six months to introduce a statutory policy, they have not yet made up their minds.

I do not think that any of us would deny the right of a Government to introduce a guillotine if or when they face factious time-wasting by an Opposition either on an issue about which they have a clear mandate from the electorate or on an issue on which it is absolutely essential to pass legislation in order to satisfy a fundamental national interest. But the Leader of the House made no attempt whatever to justify this guillotine on either of those grounds. Indeed, it is difficult to see how he could because, after all, on the question of the electoral mandate, he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have been arguing for 10 years now that the sort of legislation he is now introducing is both socially unjust and divisive and is likely to be economically catastrophic.

We now have the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I am glad to see him present today—saying that anyone who criticises this legislation is unpatriotic. We have the Leader of the House introducing legislation which severely limits the right of Parliament to criticise that legislation, yet so far we have not had one word of argument from the Government Front Bench, in all the debates last week, to show why they have now completely changed their minds about the argument they have put to us again and again—from both the Opposition Front Bench and the Government Front Bench—that this type of legislation is both socially and economically disastrous.

Indeed, last week we even had the Prime Minister telling Mr. Robin Day that his philosophy on this matter had not changed one whit since the good old days when he told us that any sort of prices or incomes interference by the Government was a dangerous and totalitarian infringement of our liberties and one which was likely to make the disease very much worse than it had been originally.

The Leader of the House failed to remind us that this is the fifth guillotine Motion introduced by the present Government in two and a half years of office, although the previous Government introduce only five guillontines in six years. I hope that the Leader of the House spent a moment or two looking at the subjects of legislation on which his predecssor introduced guillotines earlier in the past two and a half years—the Industrial Relations Act, the Housing Finance Act, the Housing (Financial Provisions) Scotland Act, and the European Communities Bill—because surely he must recognise that his experience with other legislation which has been guillotined is a very serious warning.

The Industrial Relations Bill blew up in the Government's faces because it turned out that as drafted—a point we tried to make under the guillotine but did not have time to make extensively—it was certain to increase enormously the amount of industrial strife in this country. Indeed, this year it has cost the Government more days lost in strikes than were lost during the whole period of the previous Labour Government.

The Housing Finance Act, in spite of the guillotine, has had continuously to be revised by administrative decision. Taking the Industrial Relations Act and the Housing Finance Act together, no objective observer would deny that it is these two Acts—guillotined, as they were, without adequate discussion—which have played a large part in producing the crisis with which the present Bill is supposed to deal.

The third Act which the Government introduced under the guillotine was the European Communities Act. I have no intention this afternoon—if only, Mr. Speaker, because I know that you will prevent me—of discussing the merits of the European Communities Act as such. I content myself simply by pointing out that the Bill which the Minister seeks to guillotine this afternoon cannot work unless the European Communities Act is violated. The Bill which the Minister is guillotining takes a right, in paragraph 4(1) of the Schedule, as follows: This Act, and any provision made under this Act, shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other Act or statutory provision passed or made before this Act. We all know why that particular sub-paragraph was necessary. There is a large number of prices which the Government hope to freeze over the next three or six months which they cannot freeze without violating the European Communities Act, which they forced through the House with totally inadequate discussion, under a guillotine produced with very much the same arguments as those with which the Minister tried to justify the guillotine this afternoon.

Any legislation on prices and incomes directly affects every man and woman in the country as individuals. No one can deny that. But more important still, from the point of view of the objectives the Government have set themselves, the justice and efficiency with which legislation on prices and incomes is applied is likely to create the political climate whose nature will be decisive for the future of the society and the economy.

If the Bill proves to be unjust and ineffective in its application, then the worsening of the political climate will be disastrous. Indeed, no one has argued this more strongly than the right hon. Gentlemen, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Services and, indeed, almost every member of the Government Front Bench. That is the reason why, when the Labour Party was in power, although we introduced legislation on prices and incomes, we never sought to guillotine it, even though we spent 51 hours in Standing Committee on the legislation in 1966, and 42 hours in Standing Committee in 1968. Yet the present Government are planning to guillotine this Bill before discussion in Committee even starts. They are offering us a bare two and a half days for discussion of a Bill which affects every man and woman in the country. The right hon. Gentleman did not even attempt to argue that there was any sign whatever that the Opposition intended to waste time or to filibuster. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman must have read the Order Paper and have seen that only 32 official Amendments have been tabled, all on matters of absolutely major importance to every man and woman in Britain, and all on matters whose right administration is of major importance to the Government if they are to achieve the objectives which they have said they have set themselves.

One other matter on which both sides of the House can agree—certainly both Front Benches—is that this legislation will do more harm than good unless the time it gives the Government is used to get agreement both from industry and from the trade unions, on a policy to succeed the freeze, a policy for "Phase 2" as it has come to be called. No one made that clearer than the Prime Minister in his speech last night at the Lord Mayor's banquet. We all know—no one has argued this more strongly than the members of the Government Front Bench—that a freeze which is not used to produce effective legislation is certain to dam up inflationary pressures to such an extent that when it comes to an end and the dam finally bursts, the flood of price and wage increases will be such as to sweep away any hope of stemming inflation and, indeed, of achieving the economic objectives which any Government of this country is bound to desire.

The Bill cannot work—I hope that the Leader of the House agrees with me about this—unless during the freeze and as a result of the way the freeze operates, confidence is created among the British people as a whole that control of prices and incomes will work, and will work fairly. Only in that event will there be any chance of producing a change in people's expectations about inflation, to which the Prime Minister rightly referred in his speech at the Guildhall last night.

However, it is our contention—and a glance at the Order Paper shows that our views are shared by many Conservative Members—that the Bill as drafted cannot create the conditions in which a policy for the control of prices and incomes is likely to work when the freeze ends. In the central problem of prices, food, for example, is not covered effectively. Although food represents 40 per cent. of the expenditure for the average poor family in Britain, the legislation covers only one-third of total foodstuffs. It has been recorded in the Press that increases of up to 80 per cent. are expected in the cost of the two-thirds of foodstuffs that are not affected by the legislation.

Mr. Prior indicated dissent.

Mr. Healey

The right hon. Gentleman is the right person to correct me if I am wrong.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

He has never been right on food prices.

Mr. Healey

He certainly has not. However, does he contest the view quoted in the Economist that the cost of tomatoes, for example—

Mr. Prior indicated dissent.

Mr. Healey

The right hon. Gentle man shakes his head. No doubt he will suggest that people should eat avocado pears instead of tomatoes. He is about to introduce another great change in our eating habits in that, having persuaded the population to eat peaches, he will now persuade people to eat avocado pears. Nevertheless, it was stated in the Economist that the price of tomatoes was likely to increase by 80 per cent. by next summer. The price of beef is also likely to increase—

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) rose—

Mr. Healey

There is nothing I like more than giving way to the Government Front Bench, and to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in particular. However, if the hon. Gentleman is determined to intervene I hope he will refer also to the estimate quoted at a conference of agriculturists in Harrogate last weekend that the price of beef is likely to rise by between 25 and 30 per cent. by early 1973. Will he deal also with the point made by the Economist which, rather surprisingly in view of its earlier opinions, has given the legislation a cold and clammy handshake in its past two or three issues? Last Saturday's issue, for example, stated that poor families faced an increase of well over 1 per cent. in their cost of living by next April through rises in food prices alone. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to contest those figures, I shall be delighted to listen.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

I sought to intervene at the point where the right hon. Gentleman, having said that only one-third of foodstuffs was covered—a point which can be dealt with in the Bill—added that the remaining two-thirds would increase in cost by 80 per cent.

Mr. Healey

The House will be familiar with the auditory defects from which the hon. Gentleman suffers, of which there were many examples during his interventions in the debate on VAT during the Finance Bill discussions. I said that prices of the remaining two-thirds of foodstuffs not covered by the Bill would rise by up to 80 per cent., and I cited the example of tomatoes, the cost of which is likely to increase by 80 per cent. by next summer. I also said that beef prices were likely to increase by 25 to 30 per cent. by early 1973. I also quoted the estimate by the Economist that the cost of living for poorer families would rise by well over 1 per cent. by next April because of increases in the cost of food alone, which are not covered by the Bill. I was interested to note that the Chief Secretary has not attempted to controvert these statements.

Housing is the second most important element in the cost of living. The Government pre-empted their freeze of rents in October last year and intend to bring in a further whacking increase in rents next April, when, according to the predictions leaked by the representatives of the Government to the newspapers over the weekend, the freeze will have ended.

Therefore, effective control of council rents is practically non-existent. But half the population lives in privately-owned property, where there is no control. There is no control over mortgages, the price of land or the price of housing, even though no one has argued more or wept more crocodile tears than the Chancellor in recent years about the gross injustice of the enormous increases in land and house prices because of the activities of private speculators, especially over the last year or so of Conservative rule.

The food and housing items which are not covered by the Bill account for about 40 per cent. of the average family's expenditure. On the other items which are supposed to be covered by the Bill there is already widespread evasion of control. A large number of increases has been reported to the Ministry in the first nine days of the freeze. The Government have told manufacturers and retailers that they may ignore their special offers and base their prices on a completely putative and meaningless figure, which has not appeared on a packet of "Tide" or a tin of shaving soap for months. They may make changes in quantity or quality in the packaging with almost total freedom from follow-up.

A large number of firms have already pre-empted the controls by introducing massive price increases in the weeks immediately preceding last Monday. One reason for the Bill is that the threats to introduce a statutory policy, which were made in holes and corners, in Press briefings and insinuated in answer to Questions in the House, meant that any chance of a voluntary policy succeeding began to disappear in the summer. Leyland brought in enormous increases in August, and Ford, Vauxhall, and Chrysler introduced increases of 5 per cent. during the week before the freeze was announced.

The extraordinary thing is that almost the only body in the country which did not take seriously the Government's warnings about the statutory policy were the Government themselves. They have introduced legislation for total control over wages and prices without establishing machinery to ensure that price increases were not carried out.

Mr. Prior

Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the CBI initiative from July to July, which was then carried forward to the end of October, was successful in holding down price increases to 5 per cent.? Will he give credit where credit is due, instead of making wild remarks about enormous increases in the last 10 days?

Mr. Healey

The right hon. Gentleman either misheard me or is deliberately misunderstanding what I said. I said that the Government began to drop hints around midsummer that they planned to introduce a statutory control over prices and wages. I believe that the CBI freeze, although it covered only about one-third of total consumer expediture, was fairly effective during the 12 months ending July. But there was a massive surge in the price index in August which continued in September.

The CBI freeze was crumbling during the two or three months before it officially ended. If any Minister can produce evidence to show that this is not true, we shall be interested to hear it. The Government were the only body to do nothing lo prepare for a statutory freeze. They have introduced the freeze without machinery for enforcing the provisions on prices.

There is a beleaguered handful of men and women—25, I believe, sitting somewhere in a room in London receiving between 1,000 and 2,000 telephone calls of protest or inquiry every day about what is taking place. There has been no attempt to involve local authorities in monitoring the freeze, although it should have been obvious that, without local authority support and intervention, there is no chance whatever of seeing or knowing that price controls are observed. I am astonished that the new Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs, who is supposed to represent the consumer, is not present this afternoon. After all, half the Bill is directly in his province. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Even he had to admit yesterday that, although he was the Minister for Consumer Affairs, he would play no role in seeing that the consumer's interest was represented and maintained during the next 90 to 150 days.

There is no provision in the Bill for the return of money illegally extorted by shopkeepers or manufacturers during the freeze. All that is asked is that, when they are discovered—if they are discovered—to have raised their prices illegally, they shall bring their prices down. But they pocket all their ill-gotten gains, and the consumer whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman is supposed to protect gets no recompense. At the same time as there is widespread evasion of the price elements in the legislation, many honest traders who genuinely try to comply with the legislation will find themselves bankrupt when the freeze ends, because they will not be allowed to do anything about the increase in wholesale prices to which they have been subjected by less honest traders earlier down the chain of exchange.

I have referred briefly to the defects in the price side of the legislation. The situation is very different in the wage element of the package. Here we have total control. Tears were shed by the bucketful by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister in recent months about the lot of the low-paid worker. Indeed, we were told the main purpose of the Chequers package was to help that category. Yet agricultural workers have been refused a rise already negotiated, and are not to be allowed to have it paid to them retrospectively when the freeze ends. Hospital workers and shop assistants, many of whom receive £14 a week, are not to be allowed to negotiate during the freeze for an increase to be paid.

The situation for dividends is very different. The agricultural worker who has negotiated an increase and who has been promised that it shall be paid at a date which happens to fall in the middle of the freeze is refused his increase, but any company which has announced a dividend increase, even if it were not approved by shareholders before the freeze, is allowed to pay it in the middle of the freeze. It astonishes me that a Government who still maintain that they want the support of the trade union movement for a voluntary policy when the freeze ends can introduce such an obscene discrimination between dividends and wages as that included in the Bill which the Government now seek to make subject to the guillotine.

There is no provision in the Bill to prevent the retrospective payment of dividends. A retrospective payment of wages is forbidden, but nothing is to be done about capital appreciation of shares which is not distributed in dividends, although it would be perfectly open to the Government, if they wished, to limit profits to 5 per cent. and confiscate any excess profits above that figure for the benefit of the country, to be used as the State feels best. Indeed, we have tabled a Motion to that effect.

Mr. Peter Rees (Dover)

I should be most grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would explain the concept of a retrospective dividend. Dividends are usually declared in respect of previous accounting periods. As a matter of law, I do not understand the concept of "retrospective", but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain.

Mr. Healey

I mean that any firm which has withheld the payment of dividends during the period of the freeze may increase the amount of dividends paid in the subsequent period in order to compensate its shareholders, if it wishes, for any loss which they have suffered through the lack of payment of dividends during the period of the freeze. I am glad to see that the hon. and learned Gentleman has got the point.

Finally, the Government have so little confidence in the legislation, which the House is being asked to approve without any opportunity for serious investigation and discussion, that, as in the legislation on the value added tax, they include in the Schedule of supplemental provisions some provisions which to many hon. Members on both sides of the House will appear to verge on the apparatus of a totalitarian State. Under paragraph 1(1) of the Schedule: An order or notice under section 2 of this Act …", which concerns the freeze of wages and prices, may be framed in any way whatsoever, may prescribe any method of comparing prices, charges, rates of remuneration, dividends or rents, …". Under paragraph 1(3), these provisions can create criminal offences.

The Government are asking the House to approve legislation which is bound to make the economic and social situation, serious as it is, even worse than the situation before last Monday. The House is being asked to agree to give the Government powers which have few precedents in the history of our society, and to do so without any serious opportunity for discussion.

The Bill will impose gross injustice on our people. It cannot work. It cannot achieve the objectives it sets—to freeze, to create a standstill on prices and the cost of living—and for this reason it provides the worst possible background for the resumption of talks between the Government and the CBI and the TUC.

If ever a Bill deserved and required careful scrutiny by the House, it is this Bill. For that reason my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will vote against the Motion.

4.17 p.m.

Sir Robin Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

I do not want to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) into the details of the Bill, because that will come later when we consider the Bill. I merely want to deal with the time-table Motion.

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the record of the Labour Government was so much better because when they had periodic prices and incomes Bills they did not allow all Members to take part in the Committee stage but sent the Bills upstairs to Standing Committees. He said that 51 hours were spent in Committee on one Bill. Then he went on to say that the Bill affected every man, woman and child in the country. I cannot understand how he can justify sending such a Bill upstairs to a Standing Committee. I would far rather it came on to the Floor of the House, so that all of us may put the case for our constituents.

The Government are giving 22½ hours for 630 Members instead of what the right hon. Gentleman's Government gave—51 hours to the limited number of members of a Standing Committee. His criticism of the amount of time being devoted to the Bill and of our putting it on the Floor of the House is without justification.

I believe in a time-table because the correct time-table allows for better debate and for more hon. Members to take part. But I regret that my right hon. Friend the new Leader of the House has again neglected Standing Orders. He said that it was impossible to reach a voluntary time-table. I thought the last Report on this subject from the Select Committee on Procedure had debunked the whole idea of voluntary time-tables. There is no such thing as a voluntaryy time-table: one cannot have a voluntary time-table. There may be an informal agreement between the Whips, but any independent back bencher can deal with that.

We must try to get a formal time-table that is fair to all parties. As Standing Order No. 43 lays down, when that happens the Government will say, "We can allow only three days for the Committee stage. It is up to hon. Members on the Business Committee to divide those three days so that there is a fair discussion of all important provisions". Would the Leader of the House tell us why he has neglected Standing Order No. 43, which we looked at in the Committee on Procedure as recently as in the last Session and gave our suggestions of how it was to be improved? We suggested how, under the direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, we should be able to get all parties making a contribution to a fair allocation of time.

Why has that Standing Order been cast completely overboard, as it was in the European Communities Bill? If we are not to use Standing Order No. 43, Ibegthe House to devise its own Standing Order which it thinks is better, because it is not a satisfactory way of time-tabling business for the Leader of the House alone to put what he considers to be the fair way of dividing up a Bill. When I look at his efforts today, I am reinforced in that conclusion.

As has been said, 41 Amendments are suggested to Clause 2, but there is insufficient time given to Clause 2. It is perfectly right for the Leader of the House to say that if Members do not waste too much time discussing the guillotine Motion and in discussing Clause 1, there will then be adequate time for Clause 2.

But the whole point of timetabling is to realise the human frailty and weakness of hon. and right hon. Members. They usually talk too much on too small issues. What we want to do by timetabling is to prevent that. Directly hon. Members are told that they have until eleven o'clock on day one to discuss Clause 1, Clause 1 is likely to occupy all that time.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

As a matter of history, and to put the record straight, speaking as one who was in the modest position of PPS to the Leader of the House at the time, may I say that it was at the instance of the then Conservative Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), that our Bill went upstairs, for the good reason that he found difficulty in manning the House downstairs because it was a running programme.

Sir Robin Turton

As I was saying at the beginning, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East was praying in aid that his Government had done the right thing. He ought to have said, "At the instance of the then Opposition Chief Whip, we sent Bills to Standing Committees". I have no knowledge of these backstairs intrigues between Chief Whips.

Mr. Healey

It may have slipped the the right hon. Gentleman's memory that although we took the Committee stage of the Bill in Standing Committee, by agreement between the two sides, we gave it this long period—51 hours and 42 hours in 1968—but in 1967 we gave the Report stage of the Prices and Incomes Bill 22½ hours on the Floor of the House so that in 1967 we had on Report, available to all hon. Members, almost as much time as the present Government are giving to the Committee stage.

Sir Robin Turton

That Bill was much longer. I am not trying to make a party polemical speech. When the right hon. Member for Leeds, East was talking about the Motion and not about the Bill—which was only a small fraction of his speech—he was, I thought, making a false point, because what I want people to realise is that time on the Floor of the House is much more precious than time in Standing Committee. It is wrong to compare the two.

I like to see Bills of constitutional importance being taken on the Floor of the House and I know, as any responsible Member on either side of the House knows, how difficult it is for those who manage Government business to afford more than a short time on the Floor of the House.

My other suggestion is that in future guillotine Motions the Leader of the House might insert a new provision recalling again another recommendation of the Committee on Procedure—that speeches on such occasions should be limited to 15 minutes by back benchers and 30 minutes by members of the Front Bench. It is a good opportunity for an experiment.

I see the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) shaking his head, and I know that he would be annoyed by any curtailment of speeches. It is a recommendation that has never been discussed by the House. A number of Members think that some of their colleagues talk for rather too long. A guillotine Motion would be a good opportunity to provide for an experiment.

Finally, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to reconsider the matter of timetabling again, to get us back to Standing Order No. 43, and in this case to realise that there is inadequate time for the discussion of the major issues in Clause 2, and too much time for discussion of other parts of the Bill.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

I want to take up one point made by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) on the view of the Leader of the House about a voluntary timetable. If he prefers an agreed timetable it would surely be possible for an agreement to be reached on what is a fair timetable, and for that to be included in a Motion of the type before us. This would mean that the timetable would be adhered to throughout the Committee stage of any Bill.

The Leader of the House should know the record of my party, that we adhere to the view that timetabling of Bills on the Floor of the House is a sensible arrangement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—and that the parties should agree on how much time should be given to each part of the Bill. I want the Leader of the House to expand on his statement that a voluntary timetable was tried. All I can tell him is that although my party supported the Second Reading of the Bill the Government did not consult us on any timetabling.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why should they?"]—I go back over the argument. We believe in an agreed timetable, which means as wide consultation as possible. Certainly for this Bill it means consultation with those Conservatives who voted against Second Reading. I see no reason why consultation should be confined to the Chief Whips of the two major parties, even though some back benchers seem to take that view.

Sir Robin Turton

The point I want to make is that voluntary timetabling has been abolished by the abolition of standing Order No. 44. There is no such thing as a voluntary timetable. There can be informal agreements but any hon. Member who wants to do so can break an informal agreement.

Mr. Steel

What I am saying is that one can have an informal agreement which can then be made formal by a Motion of this kind which has already been informally agreed. What we are debating now is a Motion that is not an agreement; it is a timetable that has not even been considered in the different sections of the House. This is what I am protesting about, and I think that the Leader of the House ought to proceed in a different way in future.

Mr. Prior

Of course, I have taken careful note of what right hon. and hon. Members on both sides have said. One carries out a certain number of informal discussions, and it would have been quite intolerable, if we had not been able to agree with the Opposition, that we should try to reach agreement with other sections of the House.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

That is what the Government did on the EEC Bill.

Mr. Prior

We had to try to agree with the official Opposition first, but I have taken careful note of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) said, and we shall see whether we can get the matter right next time—if there is a next time.

Mr. Steel

All I can say to that is that the comment of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), from a seated position, is perfectly correct. An element of hypocrisy is entering into the argument of the Leader of the House, because what he said that he could not do is precisely what the Government did in the instance of the European Communities Bill. If the Government are saying that they are prepared to consult us only on occasions when they think that our support matters, that is a startling admission, and the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider it. [An HON. MEMBER: "He did not say that."] I know that he did not, but the right hon. Gentleman must accept that we expect to be treated with at least the same courtesy as was practised by his predecessors.

Even if we had been consulted on the Motion, we could not have agreed to the timetable proposed. Criticism has already been made by the Father of the House about the amount of time given to Clause 2. As the effect of the Bill is to be backdated to a specific date, there is no hurry in terms of days about getting the legislation through the House. Adequate time should be given for discussion of all the topics which will be raised.

One of the effects of the guillotine is that the Chair is put in a difficult position in selecting amendments. I do not criticise that selection. I believe that it is as fair as it could be in the circumstances. What I am saying is that the selection of amendments made under the guillotine means that certain important issues will have to be discussed in a package along with other important issues.

That is not a satisfactory way of proceeding on the Committee stage of any Bill, whether on the Floor of the House or in Committee upstairs. We should have an opportunity to discuss individual issues, and particularly to vote on each issue on its merits. We should not simply have to raise matters in individual speeches under some sort of umbrella amendment, which is the procedure we shall have to adopt under the selection of amendments made under the imposition of this timetable.

It is because we believe the measure is complicated that we consider the Government should have given more time for discussion. We also consider that totally inadequate consultation took place, and therefore my colleagues and I will vote against the Motion.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen (Oswestry)

The whole House will have been seized of the importance of the case argued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) for the desirability of invoking Standing Order No. 43 if we are likely to be presented again with this somewhat disagreeable exercise.

Like my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), and in contrast to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), I want to consider the timetable Motion rather than the merits of the legislation. I do not consider that the Government have been ungenerous in the amount of time they have allocated in toto, because the only real comparison we have is the amount of time that was spent on Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966. What the Government are seeking to do, as I understand it, is to present a Bill which, to all intents and purposes, is indistinguishable from Part IV of the 1966 Act. Doubtless some quirk of draftsmanship or some aesthetic consideration persuaded them to call the measure the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill.

However, we all know roughly from what stable the Bill has come. Therefore, I believe that the time offered to the House is not unreasonable. Any study of how the Standing Committee behaved on Part IV of the 1966 Act, and how the House behaved on Report, should speedily dispose of the proposition that this is a subject which lends itself to filibustering. It is not. It lends itself to a great many serious arguments. So thick are the serious matters to be considered that this is one of those rare parliamentary occasions when we can get happily rid of the professional time-wasters.

Against that background, I concur with the broad conclusion reached by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, that the result is that the wide range of amendments which necessarily have to be grouped in consideration of Clause 2 contain the danger of making a nonsense of one central issue, which is bound to emerge in this debate, and that is the treatment of the case of the agricultural workers' pay.

I am not delving into the merits of whether the Government are right or wrong; that is an issue of great importance in its own right. It is of wide-ranging significance because it underlines the difficulties that exist between settlements which are known to the Government and those which are not, and where the watchword must be "invisibility". If anyone thinks that an academic point, I refer him to the answer given to me by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on 9th Novem- ber. I asked by what means he was informed of cash equivalents of pay settlements after taking into account the adjustment for changes in working conditions in the private sector where he has been informed that an industrial dispute has taken place. The conclusion of his reply was that there were no general arrangements for terms of settlements to be reported to his Department, whether or not an industrial dispute had taken place. Everything that flows from that simple revelation makes the debate on the agricultural wages award important and desirable so that it should have pride of place among all the considerations of Clause 2, and the time that has been offered to the House to debate it is less than adequate.

There are arguments in favour of taking the Committee stages of a Bill on the Floor of the House if issues of constitutional significance are involved, and here there is an issue of some constitutional significance. Paragraph 4(1) of the Schedule says: This Act, and any provision made under this Act, shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other Act or statutory provision passed or made before this Act. This principle my hon. Friends tried to relate to the European Communities Act and Community legislation. But when the point was put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs, he said: The question cannot be posed in such simple terms—".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1972; Vol. 845, c. 1137.] In a sense, that could well become a locus classicus statement of any Minister under pressure in replying to a debate. It is a superbly deft way of dealing with the problem. If my question were put too simply I dare say more subtle and feline minds than mine could re-phrase it in a more complex and searching fashion, but if that is required more time will be needed. It is, after all, a matter of constitutional significance. It is not just on Clause 2 that I have some reservations; I wonder whether we shall have sufficient time to probe the relationship between this legislation and Community legislation.

I hope that the guillotine will be administered in such a way as to satisfy the proper preoccupation of the House in this matter. It is not just a question of making some kind of arrangement with the Commission or with the British Steel Corporation, as though one were engaged in wheeling and dealing. Basically, the question is one of this House knowing the limits of its legislative competence, a question which can be pursued only if the House is granted time to discuss that part of the legislation. Thus, although my right hon. Friend has made reasonable allocation of time for the Committee Stage of the Bill, he has not, I think, been over-generous. I ask him therefore, to consider the two serious points which I have raised, because I believe that the House might well prefer to devote more time to those two issues and rather less to others.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

I do not think that those who listened with care and attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) would describe his mind as either subtle or feline. He has asked some direct questions, to which he should receive an equally direct reply. I am sorry that the title, Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill did not appeal to the hon. Gentleman aesthetically. But he used the rather pregnant phrase, "We know from what stable it has come", and therein, perhaps, lies a possible danger for the Government.

I shall address my remarks to the Leader of the House, not only in his present office but also in his previous incarnation as Minister of Agriculture, in pursuing the issue of the farm workers' wages, a subject which was raised by the hon. Member for Oswestry. Mr. Frazer Evans, president of the Scottish National Farmers' Union, has said: I am deeply disappointed that the latest increase in agricultural wages agreed a fortnight ago may be caught within the Government's wage and prices freeze on a technicality. … As far back as May, we made clear to the workers' side that we would be sympathetic to a new minimum rate for general farm workers of at least £19 per week"— not exactly a princely sum— as from December 4th; the workers' claim was rejected then because we were anxious to keep to the Government's wish to avoid settlements at less than yearly intervals. At its meeting on October 2nd the Board delayed a final decision on the workers' claim because of uncertainty over the effect of the Government's call for restraint; at the meeting on October 24th the employer and independent members of the Board voted in favour of the £19 proposal and against the workers' proposal for a larger increase because of the Government's wish for restraint and our prior commitment to an increase. At this point, I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a statement made during the farming programme broadcast this morning, to the effect that some rich, successful, efficient farmers would go ahead whatever course the Government decided to adopt. We know precisely what this will mean. There is no doubt that some prosperous farmers, who might be called "good" employers, will go ahead and pay whatever they wish, while the less prosperous, less good employers of agricultural workers will take refuge in the recommendation. Those of us representing substantial farming constituencies—as I do in West Lothian—know that those who work for the less prosperous farmers will get the rough end of the stick, and particularly rough because they are the lower-paid farm workers in any case.

The statement of the Scottish NFU continues: This very reasonable increase may now be frozen because the statutory machinery for settling the minimum agricultural wage means that there is always a delay between a decision by the Wages Board and the date it becomes effective. Other much larger wage awards are not affected even though they were only negotiated on Monday of this week because they were implemented immediately. There is a very real sense of grievance among farm workers because, as we all know, certain agreements, started long after the farm workers' negotiations, were rushed through because of the connivance of the employers concerned. Legally, those employers were in the clear, but there is a sense of connivance, and, if we are to talk about justice, because some employers connived and others did not—

Mr. Prior

Nonsense.

Mr. Dalyell

If it be nonsense, let the former Minister of Agriculture say why it is nonsense.

Mr. Prior

The talk about connivance is totally untrue. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman must remember that the award for Scottish agricultural workers comes only 10 months after the last award. Had it been brought forward to before the standstill, it would have come about 8½ months after the last award. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would feel that that was a reasonable period between awards.

Mr. Dalyell

We are talking about people who are starting from a base of £19 a week, less than half of what many of the motor workers in my constituency, and many others, earn. But I do not want to draw comparisons with motor workers because the important comparison is with dividend restraint, and the Government's failure to introduce any measure of that kind. The Chief Secretary will remember all the arguments we had on stock options on the Finance Bill. The comparison is with the treatment of dividends, the treatment of stock options, and the treatment of children's disaggregated incomes, which we discussed ad nauseam at that time. In these circumstances, a basis of £19 a week cannot conceivably be thought of as fair. I give way to my hon. Friend, because he represents many farmers and farm workers.

Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire)

Will my hon. Friend not agree that the farm workers' wage applications must be looked at in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's boast, when he was the Minister of Agriculture, that in the intervening months between the last wage increase and the present application, farm incomes and the profitability of the industry had increased enormously? All that farm workers are now asking is that they share in the profitability which has already accrued, and is boasted about by the present Government.

Mr. Dalyell

I echo what my hon. Friend has said. To be fair, many, though not all, Scottish farmers would go along with him. Through their official organisation—this is what its Press release and some of our discussions with them boil down to—they recognise the justice of the farm workers' case. To interfere in this way, when the Government are not interfering in dividend restraint and stock options, is wholly unjust.

I recollect the days in 1966 and 1967, under the Labour Government, when the analogy constantly used was of an ice block in a river. At the end of the freeze, it was said, the ice melts and there is a great flood. In spite of all we have now heard—the Prime Minister at the Guildhall, the Leader of the House today—I do not see why that analogy, which was used against the Labour Government in 1966 and 1967 with considerable effect, should not apply to the Government today. We have heard nothing in the way of constructive thinking on phase 2. It is said that there are problems with phase 2, but no one has come forward with a coherent notion of how to deal with the problems of the flood, of the cascade that will undoubtedly take place.

Until we have a much clearer idea of precisely what will happen on phase 2, we must maintain that this is an unwise and ill thought out, hastily produced Measure. If there was ever any Measure hastily produced and ill thought out, this is it, and that is a further reason why we should have a good deal more time to discuss it, and try to hammer some sense, method and coherence into what the Government propose.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Ray Carter (Birmingham, Northfield)

I shall be brief, because I accept the argument of the Leader of the House that we should get on with the substance of the Bill as soon as possible.

In opposing the proposed timetable, I speculate on what the Press may be saying in about two months after we have had the Act in operation for 60 days or so. I suggest that the newspapers will be saying about this Bill what they have said on many occasions since the passing of the Industrial Relations Act, that not sufficient time was given by the House to discussion of many detailed points within it. I am certain that the Press will offer a similar criticism of the Bill in about two months, particularly when housewives discover that, while their husbands' wages are pegged, prices continue to rise.

I do not wish to pre-empt the discussion that we shall have later on the various Clauses of the Bill, but there seems to be enormous scope, even if the Government were ever serious about pegging prices, for manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers and other business people to circumvent the provisions of the Bill. There is not sufficient time within the scope of the timetable to probe the Government's intentions to discover the weaknesses in the Bill, and to try to have the appropriate amendments passed.

People no longer entirely trust this Government, to put it at its mildest. It is often said, particularly by people outside the House, that politicians are apt to say one thing and do another. But no Government have ever provided more graphic cause for public feeling on this issue than the present by their actions—and, particularly, the actions of the Prime Minister—over the past few months.

In the debate on the Bill on Wednesday evening, I referred to speeches made by the Prime Minister, in particular, one he made at Birmingham in June, 1970, in which he categorically denied that a measure of this kind would ever be introduced. Indeed, that was part of the Conservative Party manifesto. I submit that the country no longer trusts this Government, and it is suspicious of the intentions lying behind the Bill.

To illustrate why the country feels as it does, I give one example. The Government, in a careful public relations exercise, are trying to convince everyone that this is merely a 90-days freeze. Anyone with sufficient marbles will know that 90 days in terms of a freeze is a ludicrous period of time. Why could not the Government be honest? Instead of saying that there will be, first, a period of 90 days and, second, a period of 60 days, why could they not be fair and honest with the country and say, "We shall institute a six months' freeze"? Obviously, that is what it will turn out to be. It will be not 90 days but at least 180, and possibly more.

Mr. Biffen

No.

Mr. Carter

The hon. Member for Oswestry says, "No". I am convinced that—

Mr. Biffen

What about the complications of VAT?

Mr. Carter

I accept entirely that there are complications with VAT, and it may well be that, as a result of the Bill, we may see other action by the Government to remove the difficulties that they will face not only on the question of VAT but on the matter of our involvement within the EEC after 1st January and the effect which the Bill will have on our commitments there. They are two added reasons for asking the Government to be honest in their thinking, not only with the House, but with the country. I do not believe that we are seeing anything like the size of the iceberg that the Government are confronting us with in the Bill.

There may be some agreement across the Floor of the House about the need for some form of control of prices and incomes, but is this the way to go about it? I do not believe it is, and therefore I cannot support the Motion. I urge the Leader of the House, even at this eleventh hour—and it is getting late, with just an hour and 15 minutes left of the debate—to reconsider precisely what he has put to us and give us sufficient time to debate adequately one of the most serious Measures to be brought before the House since the war.

4.56 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin)

We have had a commendably brief debate on the timetable Motion, which fulfils the hope of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) that the House might dispose of the Motion earlier than we had envisaged and move on to the consideration of the Bill. I shall not take more than a short time to reply to some of the points made during the debate.

It was the hon. Member for Northfield who reminded us that earlier Opposition speakers did not always bear in mind that the Bill is a very short-term, temporary measure, intended to provide time to work out, by agreement if possible, longer-term measures. What might be inappropriate for the 12-months Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) mentioned is not necessarily appropriate for a much shorter-term Bill, such as we shall shortly consider. This is the important point to remember when we talk about the need for a timetable and the time that has been allocated.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) drew the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the provisions of Standing Order No. 43, and suggested that perhaps that procedure should be used on this occasion. With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, that would have been difficult, because if we had proposed the Standing Order No. 43 procedure for the establishment of a Business Committee the House would have had to wait for the Committee to meet and to make recommendations on the allocation of time. There would have needed to be two Motions, first, to refer the matter to the Business Committee and, subsequently, to put into effect what it recommended. We have felt all along that the urgency of the Bill was such that it was better that we should ask the House to let Parliament pass the legislation as rapidly as we could.

Sir Robin Turton

The normal procedure would be that when the Government moved to bring the Bill to a Committee of the whole House, at the same time they moved the appointment of a Business Committee, which would get over the time difficulty. It is important that we should try to get the timetable procedure right, because it was the understanding of the Select Committee on Procedure when we considered the guillotine Motion that the Motion would come on the first day when the Bill was being brought to the Floor of the House.

Mr. Jenkin

I am anxious to be as helpful as possible. I should be the last to claim—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will agree with me—that we have got these matters right. I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said about the general sense of timetabling when one is dealing with measures of this sort. We have no wish to be obstinate or stiffnecked about the matter and we will take the closest note of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton has said.

With regard to the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton put his finger on the matter when he said that most of what the right hon. Gentleman said was about the Bill and not about the Motion. We shall have a good many hours over the course of the next three days to deal with the various matters that the right hon. Gentleman raised. I do not think that I should go into those matters now, but I must say that I rejected completely the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there is any inconsistency—the right hon. Gentleman used a somewhat stronger word and did so, I think, very unjustly between, our desire to get the Bill passed as quickly as we can, consistent with a reasonable amount of time for debate, and the provisions in the Bill for extending the standstill period after 60 days, if that should prove necessary, so that we can put what has been called the stage 2 proposals before the House. I do not think there is any inconsistency in that at all.

The reason we want the Bill put through as quickly as possible is that where one has a measure of this sort, an emergency short-term measure, back-dated to a date even before the First Reading of the Bill—the date of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement was 6th November—it is essential that the Government should have the powers to take action as quickly as possible—again, if it should be necessary—against those who fail to observe the standstill.

I disagree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Peebles and Selkirk who suggested, if I understood him correctly, that because the standstill is backdated to 6th November that was a reason for not needing to hurry too much over the Bill. The difficulties that one faces when one is taking powers to make orders or to serve notices on those who fail to comply with the standstill are to ensure that the shortest possible time should elapse during which one has not got the power to deal with them. We have specifically not taken the power to make anything retrospective. We can make the powers operate only from the date of the Royal Assent. It seems that the argument which the hon. Gentleman put forward is the opposite to the one he was putting to the House that we need to limit the time, as far as we can, between the date of the standstill, namely, 6th November, and the date on which the Government are in a position to take powers to deal with the matter. I did not wholly accept the hon. Gentleman's argument in that regard.

We take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry and other speakers said about the agricultural workers. No doubt that matter can be dealt with in the debates on Clause 2. The point that my hon. Friend made, which was relevant to what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said, was that the true comparison is not with the whole of the 1966 Prices and Incomes Bill. That started fairly leisurely after the Declaration of Intent which set up the National Board for Prices and Incomes and all that, but suddenly, on 20th July, 1966, the freeze was announced by the then Prime Minister and it was followed by something which I hope will always be regarded as quite unprecedented in the annals of the House, namely, the addition to a Bill which had already had its Second Reading and was already in Committee, of Part IV. It is Part IV which is the nearest parallel.

I disagree with my hon. Friend when he says that this measure is indistinguishable from the 1966 Act, because the circumstances in which it is being introduced are quite different—we shall have the opportunity to deal with that argument—not least because we are introducing an emergency Bill to give time to work out longer-term measures, whereas our predecessors in 1966 had already introduced the long-term measures and then were forced to take emergency action. It seems that they had it the wrong way round.

Part IV of the 1966 Act never had any Second Reading. It went straight into the Committee Stage and only a fraction of the time that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned was devoted to the Committee Stage of the 1966 Act was devoted to Part IV. We feel that the time we are allowing on the Bill, bearing in mind that it is a short-term measure intended to provide a temporary standstill while the Government can work out, by agreement or otherwise, the longer-term measures to fight inflation, is not unreasonable.

Therefore, on the merits, and, indeed, so far as the precedent of the 1966 legislation is relevant, the time allowed under the time-table Motion is reasonable. It might even be regarded as reasonable if it were operative for a very much longer period, such as the 1966 legislation, but it is reasonable for legislation which cannot last for more than 90 days from the Royal Assent if there is no extension, or five months if there is an extension for the period of 60 days.

We appreciate that there will be rough edges. There are bound to be difficulties which would be more serious if this were permanent legislation. But the general support of the public for the measures which have been introduced—

Mr. Biffen

Before my hon. Friend passes beyond the prospect of the renewal for a further 60 days, will he indicate whether, should that eventually come to pass, he sees the House having a full day in which to debate the order and extending it. Obviously all the problems of the agricultural workers' pay and a great many other things will be very much in the forefront of our minds, and 90 minutes late at night would be inadequate.

Mr. Jenkin

It does not fall to me to determine the Business of the House. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has taken a most careful note of what my hon. Friend said. I have no doubt that matters of that sort can be discussed through the normal channels and hon. Members from both sides will have an opportunity to make their representations to my right hon. Friend.

I was making the point that, even if the extension has to be decided upon, even if the House is asked and it is eager to extend the order for a further 60 days, we are still dealing with a very short-term measure.

The time is relatively short. The amount of time which we have allocated for debate, and which we have put forward in the Motion, gives ample opportunity for a thorough examination of the Bill. I can understand why hon. Members should object to a time-table Motion. It is natural that all those who are not entirely happy with the legislation which the Government bring forward should feel that their time is being limited and that they do not have an adequate opportunity to voice their comments and objections. However, we believe it right that we should, rather than risk the difficulties of too much time being concentrated on one part of the Bill, perhaps even not the most important part, allocate the time from the beginning. That will make for sensible and orderly debate.

It is right to note that there have been comments on this matter outside the House. The surprise is not that we are rushing this legislation through but that we are not putting it through the House faster. The Sun, which has been calling on the Government to bring forward legislation of this sort for some time, says in a leading article this morning under the headline "Wreckers"— What a pity that the Government, after dawdling so long before deciding to use the law, are now taking a month over legislation that could and should have been pushed through in a week. We are not following that extreme course. In so far as there is pressure from the outside, it is pressure that we should get ahead with the legislation, get it on to the Statute Book, and make the powers in the Bill effective, because the public are sick and tired of inflation. Indeed, many people in the country are genuinely alarmed at the recent acceleration in the rate of inflation after the success that the Government had in the earlier part of the year in nearly halving the rate over the previous 12 months.

In view of what has been said in the debate, and in view of the general lack of heat that has been generated, I gain the impression that there is a widespread acceptance of the need for introducing the legislation quickly, if it is to be done at all. I commend the Motion to the House.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Reg Prentice (East Ham, North)

The country is indeed sick and tired of inflation. It therefore wants a General Election so that it can have a Government who will deal with inflation effectively.

My right hon. and hon. Friends and I greatly agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) in his intervention. If there is to be an extension of the standstill for a 60-day period, there should be a debate for at least a full day before that is approved. We hope that the Leader of the House will take that point and realise that we fully support what the hon. Member said.

A number of arguments have been raised to which we have not had proper replies. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) very properly talked about the procedure for securing guillotine Motions. The Chief Secretary said that he did not want to appear to be obstinate or stiff-necked. Even if he did not want to appear that way, he certainly succeeded in giving a very good facsimile of it. The proper

procedure should be followed. I speak for many hon. Members when I say that an Opposition should not automatically oppose guillotine Motions, but the procedure should be followed and agreement sought, wherever possible.

The main point is that the Motion is hopelessly inadequate in view of the size of the problems we are discussing. The Chief Secretary said that we need not concern ourselves with the rough edges. That is a strange doctrine for anyone sitting on the Treasury bench, or indeed for any parliamentarian, to advance. The Committee stage of any important Bill is supposed to deal with rough edges.

It is not merely a question of rough edges. We are talking about a whole series of very different subjects each of which affects millions of people—the effectiveness or otherwise of the prices controls that are proposed; the extent of the limitations on incomes and the situation of the agricultural workers, the hospital workers, and other low-paid workers about whom the Government continually allege that they are concerned. We wish to discuss adequately the question of the application of this policy to dividends and to rents, also its effect, or lack of effect, on housing and on land. There is the very important question of the apparent contradiction between this legislation and that on the European Communities.

Even if only a few hon. Members speak on each of the subjects and even if every speech is reasonably brief, each of these subjects requires a debate of a few hours. There will not be adequate time under the proposed timetable properly to debate matters of this great importance. In view of that, and in view of the Chief Secretary's inadequate reply, I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide against the Motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 266.

Division No. 8.]	AYES	[5.15 p.m.
Adley, Robert	Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Benyon, W.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord	Berry, Hn. Anthony
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian	Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Biffen, John
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)	Batsford, Brian	Biggs-Davison, John
Astor, John	Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Blaker, Peter
Atkins, Humphrey	Bell, Ronald	Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Awdry, Daniel	Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Bossom, Sir Clive	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	More, Jasper
Bowden, Andrew	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Braine, Sir Bernard	Hannam, John (Exeter)	Morrison, Charles
Bray, Ronald	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Mudd, David
Brewis, John	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Haselhurst, Alan	Neave, Airey
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Havers, Sir Michael	Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Hawkins, Paul	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Hayhoe, Barney	Nott, John
Bryan, Sir Paul	Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward	Onslow, Cranley
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M)	Heseltine, Michael	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Buck, Antony	Hicks, Robert	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Bullus, Sir Eric	Higgins, Terence L.	Osborn, John
Burden, F. A.	Hiley, Joseph	Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray & Nairn)	Hill, James (Southampton Test)	Parkinson, Cecil
Carlisle, Mark	Holland, Philip	Peel, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Holt, Miss Mary	Percival, Ian
Cary, Sir Robert	Hordern, Peter	Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Channon, Paul	Hornby, Richard	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Chapman, Sydney	Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Pink, R. Bonner
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Pounder, Rafton
Chichester-Clark, R.	Howell, David (Guildford)	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Churchill, W. S.	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk. N.)	Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
	Hunt, John
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Proudfoot, Wilfred
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Iremonger, T. L.	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Cockeram, Eric	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Cooke, Robert	James, David	Raison, Timothy
Coombs, Derek	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Cooper, A. E	Jennings, J. C. (Burton)	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Cordle, John	Jessel, Toby	Redmond, Robert
Cormack, Patrick	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Costain, A. P.	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Rees, Peter (Dover)
Critchley, Julian	Jopling, Michael	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Crouch, David	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Crowder, F. P	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Dalkelth, Earl of	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)	Kershaw, Anthony	Ridsdale, Julian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Kilfedder, James	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.Jack	Kimball, Marcus	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Dean, Paul	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Kinsey, J. R.	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Dixon, Piers	Kirk, Peter	Rost, Peter
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Kitson, Timothy	Russell, Sir Ronald
Drayson, G. B.	Knight, Mrs. Jill	St. John-Stevas, Norman
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Knox, David	Scott, Nicholas
Dykes, Hugh	Lambton, Lord	Scott-Hopkins, James
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Lamont, Norman	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Lane, David	Shelton, William (Clapham)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Le Merchant, Spencer	Simeons, Charles
Emery, Peter	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Sinclair, Sir George
Eyre, Reginald	Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'field)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Farr, John	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Fell, Anthony	Longden, Sir Gilbert	Soref, Harold
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Loveridge, John	Speed, Keith
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	Luce, R. N.	Spence, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Sproat, lain
Fookes, Miss Janet	MacArthur, Ian	Stainton, Keith
Fortescue, Tim	McCrindle, R. A.	Stanbrook, Ivor
Foster, Sir John	McLaren, Martin	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Fowler, Norman	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Fox, Marcus	Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Maurice (Farnham)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Stokes, John
Fry, Peter
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Gardner, Edward	Maddan, Martin	Sutcliffe, John
Gibson-Watt, David	Madel, David	Tapsell, Peter
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Maginnis, John E	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Glyn, Dr. Alan	Marten, Neil	Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Mather, Carol	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Goodhart, Philip	Maude, Angus	Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Goodhew, Victor	Maudling. Rt. Hn. Reginald	Tebbit, Norman
Gorst, John	Mawby, Ray	Temple, John M.
Gower, Raymond	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Gray, Hamish	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Green, Alan	Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire, W)	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Grieve, Percy	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Tilney, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Moate, Roger	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Grylls, Michael	Molyneaux, James	Trew, Peter
Gummer, J. Selwyn	Money, Ernie	Tugendhat, Christopher
Gurden, Harold	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	Monro, Hector	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Montgomery, Fergus	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Vickers, Dame Joan	Wells, John (Maidstone)	Woodnutt, Mark
Walder, David (Clitheroe)	White, Roger (Gravesend)	Worsley, Marcus
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)	Wiggin, Jerry	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek	Wilkinson, John	Younger, Hn. George
Wall, Patrick	Winterton, Nicholas
Walters, Dennis	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Ward, Dame Irene	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard	Mr. Bernard Weatherill and
Warren, Kenneth	Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher	Mr. Walter Clegg.
NOES
Abse, Leo	Ewing, Harry	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Albu, Austen	Faulds, Andrew	McBride, Neil
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.	McCartney, Hugh
Allen, Scholefield	Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)	McElhone, Frank
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	McGuire, Michael
Ashley, Jack	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mackenzie, Gregor
Ashton, Joe	Foley, Maurice	Mackie, John
Atkinson, Norman	Foot, Michael	Mackintosh, John P.
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Ford, Ben	Maclennan, Robert
Barnes, Michael	Forrester, John	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Fraser, John (Norwood)	McNamara, J. Kevin
Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)	Freeson, Reginald	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Beaney, Alan	Galpern, Sir Myer	Marks, Kenneth
Benn, Rt. Hn Anthony Wedgwood	Garrett, W. E.	Marquand, David
Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Gilbert, Dr. John	Marsden, F.
Bidwell, Sydney	Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)	Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Bishop, E. S.	Golding, John	Mayhew, Christopher
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Gourlay, Harry	Meacher, Michael
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Booth, Albert	Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Mendelson, John
Bottomley, Rt Hn. Arthur	Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Mikardo, Ian
Boyden, James(Bishop Auckland)	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Millan, Bruce
Bradley, Tom	Hamilton, William (Fife, W )	Miller, Dr. M. S.
Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)	Hamling, William	Milne, Edward
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury)	Hardy, Peter	Molloy, William
Buchan, Norman	Harper, Joseph	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Hattersley, Roy	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Healey. Rt. Hn. Denis	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Cant, R. B.	Heffer, Eric S.	Moyle, Roland
Carmichael, Neil	Horam John	Murray, Ronald King
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Oakes, Gordon
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Huckfield, Leslie	Ogden, Eric
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Hughes, Rt. Hn, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	O'Halloran, Michael
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	O'Malley, Brian
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Orbach, Maurice
Cohen, Stanley	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Orme, Stanley
Coleman, Donald	Hunter, Adam	Oswald, Thomas
Concannon, J. D.	Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)	Padley, Walter
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Janner, Greville	Paget, R. T.
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Palmer, Arthur
Crawshaw, Richard	Jeger, Mrs. Lena	Pannell, Rt Hn. Charles
Cronin, John	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Pardoe, John
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	John, Brynmor	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Cunningham. G. (Islington, S.W.)	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Perry, Ernest G.
Dalyell, Tam	Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)	Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Darling, Rt. Hn. George	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Prescott, John
Davidson, Arthur	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Probert, Arthur
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)	Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Judd, Frank	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Kaufman, Gerald	Richard, Ivor
Deakins, Eric	Kelley, Richard	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Kerr, Russell	Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Delargy, Hugh	Kinnock, Nell	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Lamborn, Harry	Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&R'dnor)
Dempsey, James	Lamond, James	Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Doig, Peter	Latham, Arthur	Roper, John
Dormand, J. D.	Lawson, George	Rose, Paul B.
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Leadbitter, Ted	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Rowlands, Ted
Dunn, James A.	Leonard, Dick	Sandelson, Neville
Dunnett, Jack	Lestor, Miss Joan	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Eadie, Alex	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Edelman, Maurice	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Lipton, Marcus	Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton, N.E.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Lomas, Kenneth	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Ellis, Tom	Loughlin, Charles	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
English, Michael	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Silverman, Julius
Evans, Fred	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Sillars, James

Skinner, Dennis	Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Small, William	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)	Whitehead, Phillip
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy	Whitlock, William
Smith, John (Lanarkshire. N.)	Tinn, James	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Spearing, Nigel	Torney, Tom	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Spriggs, Leslie	Tuck, Raphael	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Stallard, A. W.	Urwin, T. W.	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Steel, David	Varley, Eric G.	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)	Wainwright, Edwin	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)	Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)	Woof, Robert
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John	Wallace, George
Strang, Gavin	Watkins, David	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.	Weitzman, David	Mr. James Hamilton and
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley	Wellbeloved, James	Mr. Tom Pendry.
Swain, Thomas	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the following provisions shall apply to the further Proceedings on the Bill:—

Committee, Report, Third Reading and Consideration of Lords Amendments

1.—(1) The Proceedings in Committee shall be completed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the following table:—

TABLE
Allotted day	Proceedings	Time for conclusion of proceedings
First day	Clause 1	11.00 p.m.
Second day	Clause 2—Amendments before subsection (2)	7.00 p.m.
	Clause 2—Amendments before subsection (4)	11.00 p.m.
Third day	Remainder of Clause 2 and Clause 3	7.00 p.m.
	Clause 4	9.00 p.m.
	Remaining proceedings in Committee	11.00 p.m.

(2) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion on that day at Nine o'clock, in the case of Proceedings on Consideration, and Eleven o'clock, in the case of Proceedings on Third Reading; but if there are no Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, Proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion at Six o'clock.

(3) The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Five o'clock on that day.

2. Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order so far as it relates to Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration or on Third Reading of the Bill.

Proceedings on going into Committee

3. When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question, notwithstanding that notice of an Instruction has been given.

Order of Proceedings in Committee

4. No Motion shall be made to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule.

Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Bill for one hour after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period under this paragraph.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under this paragraph, and the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall also be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion.

Standing Order No. 13

8. Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business) shall not apply on an allotted day.

Private Business

9. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill, or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings.

This paragraph shall not apply to an allotted day on which Proceedings on Third Reading of the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at Six o'clock or Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments are to be brought to a conclusion at Five o'clock.

Conclusions of Proceedings

10.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

b) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;

c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded; and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If, at Seven o'clock on an allotted day, any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.

(4) If a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over to Seven o'clock on an allotted day, or to any later time under sub-paragraph (3) above, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day at any hour falling after the beginning of the Proceedings on that Motion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

11.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and the last foregoing paragraph shall apply as if the Proceedings were Proceedings on the Bill on an allotted day.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

12. Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order, or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

13.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading included references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

14. In this Order—

'allotted day' means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the Proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed to on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;

'the Bill' means the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill.