INDUSTRY BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

HC Deb 18 June 1975 vol 893 cc1399-428

3.46 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I beg to move,
	That the Order of 12th May be supplemented by substituting the following paragraph for paragraph 2:—
Report and Third Reading
5	2.—(1) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock on the last of those days: and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
10	(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading not later than 23rd June.
	(3) The Resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further report so made, whether before or after 23rd June, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
15	(4) The Resolution of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken'.

Mr. Speaker

I inform the House that I have selected the Opposition amendment.

Mr. Kaufman

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry agreed, during the final stages of the Industry Bill Committee, to approach his colleagues with a view to extending the time allotted for the Report stage of the Bill. The Government have concluded that it would be appropriate to extend to three days the time for Report and Third Reading in order to assure an adequate opportunity for the discussion of amendments. I am pleased to be able to introduce the motion necessary to extend the timetable.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine (Henley)

I beg to move, in line 5, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.

I think that the whole House will regard that explanation as totally inadequate, because the Secretary for Industry did not undertake definitely to extend the time available for Report. What he did was to give an assurance that if substantial amendments were to be introduced he would recommend to his right hon. Friend and to the Government that adequate time should be given on Report. So the Under-Secretary today, without spelling it out, is saying that the Government have decided that there shall be extensive amendments to the Industry Bill on Report, and that takes us back to the beginning of the dialogue which provoked the unprecedented suspension of the Standing Committee on no fewer than three occasions last week.

The whole debate began when the former Secretary of State for Industry referred a week ago to the possibility of a further White Paper on the Industry Bill, although that is a most unusual procedure to put to the House, but he was not able to answer questions in the Industry Committee as to whether the review to which he had referred in answering questions was going to make substantial amendments to the Bill. He was not able to be found, and the Standing Committee was not able to question him. As a consequence, the Under-Secretary, having done his best to find the Secretary of State for Industry but having failed, was not himself able to answer questions.

On that very night, Tuesday last week, the Secretary of State for Industry left his job in order to move to his new position. But everybody on that Standing Committee knew that the dialogue, which we had been conducting for what amounted in the end to 40 sittings, would not be resolved until after the referendum, when the Government were able to come to grips with the central issue whether or not the Bill was to follow the White Paper or whether the Bill itself was to stand supreme.

There were two conflicting views. One was given by the Prime Minister in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield), when the Prime Minister made it clear that he took the view that the Bill would be subject to the White Paper. He repeated this assurance on a number of occasions, including yesterday, on the Floor of the House. The then Under-Secretary took the view that, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's word, as he so quaintly told the Standing Committee, the Bill would stand in its drafted form. This has been the background against which we have conducted deliberations in the Standing Committee.

This last week we saw, in a whole range of much franker statements than we have had previously, the very clear position—that the Government intend to conduct the review and, having conducted the review, to consider substantial amendments. I think that the new Secretary of State for Industry should have come to the House this afternoon to explain the position. I find it difficult to understand why the Under-Secretary, who has the sole distinction of not having attended any meetings of the Standing Committee, should have to come here to explain something to which he was not party in any way.

Mr. Kaufman

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is not in the House today for this motion because he is meeting the Trades Union Congress with regard to the Bill.

Mr. Heseltine

That explanation is interesting and probably reflects what some of us on both sides of the Committee have felt—that the real decisions about the Bill are to be made by the TUC and CBI, and that the Secretary of State for Industry feels that it is more important to conduct the consultations with the TUC while the House is trying to discuss the Bill. I am most grateful to the Under Secretary for clarifying what his hon. Friends have been saying in the Standing Committee for some time and what the Government have done their best to resist in the face of hostility from their own back benchers. That position is now clearly put on the record, and the House will appreciate the frankness of the Under-Secretary.

We have now the situation that, given the assurance which the Secretary for Industry gave the Standing Committee, if the Government decided that there were to be substantial amendments, extra time would be found. On Friday, the day after he gave that assurance, the Government decided to give an extra day on Report and put down a motion after the Chequers discussions which, I understand from the Press comments, concentrates around the sorts of amendments the Government would want to make. But the fact is that we are being given three days to discuss amendments which at the time the Government put down the motion in their name could not have been substantiated. All the Government could conceivably have known at that time was that there were to be substantial amendments. As they had not then met the CBI and TUC—very important meetings, as the Under-Secretary has pointed out—they could only have known in general terms that the Bill was going to be substantially amended.

I now come to the amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend and myself, which suggests that three days cannot possibly be adequate for the consideration of the Report stage of the Bill. We do not know what amendments will be tabled, and we do not know when they will be tabled. In a guillotine procedure, that itself is very important. The Under-Secretary made no attempt to clarify his position. We know only that what took 40 sittings of the Standing Committee will be amended substantially in a way which no one in this House other than members of the Government have any idea about unless we rely upon the widely leaked stories in the Press.

I believe that the whole House will feel that the treatment of Parliament in the context of this Bill is, first, without precedent and, secondly, shaming, because it reflects clearly that our deliberations in the Standing Committee were tantamount to a farce. They were designed—and I claim a part in this—to keep the Bill in Committee until after the referendum so that the Government could then take decisions which they were not prepared to take before the referendum.

That is the background against which we are asked to give an additional day to the deliberations on Report about matters which are not before the House. I regard this as a novel and regrettable method of treating first the Standing Committee and now the whole House. It is sensible, therefore, for the House to show its unwillingness to be treated in this way by voting not for three days but for four days, which will at least ensure that we have adequate time to consider what has been described by the Prime Minister as one of the most important industrial Bills ever to come before the country and which the Opposition believe is a major irritant to a situation where we have the fastest declining investment programme and the largest prospective levels of unemployment since the war.

This is a Bill of critical importance. Both sides of the House see it from different viewpoints, but what is beyond question is that the House of Commons should insist upon its right to have adequate time. Therefore, I shall recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the amendment.

Mr. Michael Grylls (Surrey, North-West)

Before my hon. Friend sits down, will he deal with one further point? Four days instead of three days is a great improvement. However, as we are completely in the dark about any negotiations which are going on with the CBI and the TUC, will he agree that perhaps four days is too little time? If there are major changes, we may need another 40 days. Perhaps there should be a further amendment proposed to that effect.

Mr. Heseltine

There is considerable logic in my hon. Friend's intervention, which I find compelling. On the other hand, we have to bear in mind that the Government's programme is already in the most appalling situation. It would have been irresponsible of the Opposition to move in the direction that my hon. Friend suggests, although there would be an overwhelming argument for the House to take the matter into its own hands and to move that the whole Bill be sent back to Standing Committee for consideration. However, in my view, our protest would be made sufficiently if we showed the Gov- ernment that we were not prepared to be treated in this way by voting tor four days instead of for three.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

I think that I speak for all my hon. Friends who served on the Standing Committee when I say that, provided that the amendments which come forward on Report arise purely out of our discussions and commitments given by the Government in Committee, we shall not press for any additional time. From our point of view, the original two days would have been quite sufficient since the amendments on Report would have arisen naturally out of amendments tabled by the Opposition and by my hon. Friends in Committee when commitments were given by the Government that they would look at the amendments, tidy them up, and move amendments of their own on Report to meet the wishes of the Committee.

Towards the end of the Committee stage, just before we walked out of the Committee, I asked for an assurance from the new Secretary of State that there would not be any amendments on Report in addition to those arising automatically from the work of the Committee. I am afraid that my right hon. Friend did not give me that assurance.

The majority of Government supporters who were concerned with the work of the Committee are not worried about discussions taking place in private with the TUC. The TUC is not pressing for any great changes in the Bill indeed, if there were important changes, it would be pressing to maintain the Bill as it is. We are more concerned about the CBI, which, as we know from Press statements, is pressing for substantial amendments to be made to the Bill.

I was not made any happier yesterday when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister replied to a supplementary question which I put to him. I wanted to know whether there would be any substantial amendments. He replied that as far as he was concerned, quoting my own words to me, I was surely in favour of voluntary rather than statutory agreements.

I was talking about voluntary agreements in the context of planning agreements. The disclosure provisions—not connected with the planning agreements, but disclosure provisions of the Bill- -were there in any case, and the Secretary of State had the right at any time statutorily to ask any company to provide information that he wanted.

On the basis of the Prime Minister's reply, I am concerned about whether those provisions are to be changed. If they are, that will mean a substantial change in the Bill as it was discussed in Committee.

Another point concerns the National Enterprise Board. In Committee, as is their prerogative, the Opposition attempted to get the Government to agree with the line that the CBI was pressing. In other words, when we were talking about the take-over of a profitable manufacturing company, it should be only with the directors of the company rather than with the shareholders as a whole. We all know that at times this happens in the business world. A bid is made to the directors of a company, and they refuse. Then the bid is made to the shareholders, and they decide against the wishes of the directors.

As the Prime Minister spelt out in a letter to the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), all that we were saying was that there was no question but that it should include shareholders as a whole. However, the CBI is demanding that it must be by agreement only with the directors. I assume that the CBI is still pressing for this. If an amendment along those lines is to be tabled, that represents a substantial change in the Bill.

Then there is the amount of money available for the National Enterprise Board. It is no good having such a board with all the trimmings laid down but with no money. If the money is not there, all the instruments in the world will achieve nothing. The board will be simply suspended in mid-air unable to do the job which the Labour Party believes to be essential.

Those are the three areas which deeply concern us. We know that we lost the argument in relation to other areas. We pressed in Committee—and it is no secret that I pressed in Government—for the entire programme of the party as it was laid down in 1973 to be in the White Paper. We lost the argument. We lost the further argument in the Committee. so we are not saying we go back. We may well put down amendments, if there is time in the two days, to raise further argument, hoping even at this late hour to win the argument and gain support; and we could still do it within two days.

We are now faced, or could be faced, with agreed policies and amendments to be formulated by the Government. We do not expect that they would take a CBI amendment just like that and put it in. But discussions were started with the CBI yesterday afternoon, and they came out looking like the cat who had just had the cream, with beaming faces, saying "We understand the Government are doing their best to meet the kind of requirements we need and are doing their best to help us."

I am not interested in helping the CBI to change a Bill which has emerged from years of discussions within the Labour movement and Labour Party and is going through the parliamentary processes. I do not want the CBI to be making proposals at this stage and to discover that those proposals come forward within three days as substantial amendments. So far as I and many of my hon. Friends are concerned, even if there were 50 amendments that were not substantial the two days, I believe, would be accepted. But if the amendments are substantial ones three days would not be enough. We should need more than three days.

Probably we shall not vote on this question because we shall have to see what amendments actually come forward. We know that it will then be too late but we could still make our position clear on the Floor of the House in relation to those amendments before we discuss them; so we will withhold our fire on that. But I would tell my hon. Friend now, and I warn my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, not to come forward with any fundamental changes which reflect the opinions of the CBI. We in the Labour movement do not accept that that should be done, and if it is done, I say right now that we in the Labour movement will not accept them and we shall fight those amendments all the way through and shall have a lot to say about them, even if they should be passed, until eventually they are removed from the statute book.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright (Colne Valley)

In view of the sombre warning which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), in characteristic manner, has just given to the Government it is disappointing, not only to me but, I am sure, to many other hon. Members, that he should have just indicated that he will not be backing that warning with a vote on this motion, because the House is being asked this afternoon to decide upon a very strict limitation of time for transacting work the nature of which has not yet been disclosed.

This House is much given—and I myself, with other hon. Members, have been guilty of it—to complaining about the poor standard of management found in parts of British industry. But could management sink lower than to ask the work force to agree in advance to a strict limitation of time for performing certain tasks without disclosing what those are? There appear to be some very poor shop stewards in this place. I thought I could get information from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, for I thought he was the shop steward for minority parties and ordinary MPs.

I do not want to labour arguments already adduced with which I am very largely in sympathy but I would add this consideration. Even in the Standing Committee, which is only a fraction, perhaps one-eighteenth, of the whole of this honourable House, it became utterly manifest—and I am sure no member of the Standing Committee would deny it—that this Bill, even in its first edition, attracted at least seven quite distinctive and separate points of view. On the Government side there was the Tribune point of view. I am not suggesting that that was necessarily always a solid and united point of view but broadly it was a voting group which brought forward some very interesting amendments, sometimes supported by 11, 12 or 13 honourable Members in Committee.

Then there was the Government point of view which was advanced by a rapidly changing variety of spokesmen during our 40 sittings. Then there was what is known, rather inadequately, as the moderate Labour point of view, again not a solid block but an identifiable and very interesting point of view on this multifarious Bill. On the opposite side there was the orthodox Conservative point of view, what I choose to call the lowest common denominator. There was the distinctive point of view of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who sometimes got support from some of his hon. Friends. Then there were the Plaid Cymru point of view and the Liberal point of view.

The Standing Committee did not include anybody to add to that variety the views of the Scottish National Party or the views of hon. Members from Northern Ireland, so that when one adds to the melange revealed in the Standing Committee other elements of the House who I am sure will want to take part in the Bill, it is quite clear that the Government never seize themselves of the point that time must be allotted not only for the old style Government and Opposition debate but for all these very distinctive points of view to be fairly put.

No matter what the nature of the amendments which are being concealed from the House at the moment, it is manifest that the time proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House falls shamefully short of the time required for all points of view to be reasonably put, however concise these speakers may be. Furthermore, this is not the first time that the Government, in coming forward with timetable motions, have failed to realise, or at any rate have not been willing openly to acknowledge, that the nature of Parliament has changed as a result of the last two General Elections.

Other authorities in the House have been speedy in acknowledging the changed circumstances caused by the representation of many parties in this House, especially on the Opposition side, but the Government pretend that this has not happened. I must make the protest this afternoon that there has been no acknowledgment, not even by way of consultation, that there are now many voices, organised voices, in this House and they must be given time to deal with the matter.

I shall recommend my Liberal Friends to support the Conservative amendment because I believe I recognise the honourable purpose behind it, but I cannot pretend that I will do so with great conviction, because no one in the House can say that four, five or six days are sufficient to transact business the nature of which we are not allowed to know.

I hope that on reflection the Under-Secretary, who has only just taken over his task, will bow to the weight of opinion which I believe will be revealed in the House during the course of this brief debate and will take this matter back and at least hold it back until he can present his amendments from the Government side.

4.09 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Crawford (Perth and East Perthshire)

I would like to inform the House that my party, too, supports the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), not because of any threat from the CBI or other Departments but because we wish to show that in this Bill the interests of Scotland have not been safeguarded.

The House will be aware that we were extremely angry that the Scottish National Party were not represented on the Committee and extremely angry at the cavalier way in which amendments were treated when put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) and myself to ensure that the writ of the National Enterprise Board would not run in Scotland and that the writ of the Scottish Development Agency would run in Scotland and the writ of the Welsh Development Agency in Wales. We shall again be seeking on Report to table many amendments to this effect. We shall be wanting as much time as possible to test the wishes and opinions of this House and to see what the Government's intentions are about the Scottish Development Agency and the Welsh Development Agency. My party wants as much time as possible for Report in order to ensure that the writ of the London-based National Enterprise Board does not run in Scotland.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bethnal Green and Bow)

During the long course of the Committee proceedings on the Industry Bill I, not surprisingly, crossed swords on a number of occasions with the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). I am, however, bound to say that this afternoon I find myself in complete agreement with his statement that the way in which the Government are handling the Bill at this stage is an insult, and an intolerable insult, to all hon. Members who spent 40 long, hard-working Sittings in Committee.

It is absolutely clear that the Government intend some action which will make null and void a great deal of the work done in Committee. Over many years in this House I have sat on a number of Committees, but I cannot recall any other which has been so assiduous and hard working. The amendments tabled from both sides—perhaps I should say from all quarters—of the Committee gave evidence of a great deal of study and research, not merely into the text of the Bill but into all the issues covered by the Bill and all the matters related to them. We did stick at it very hard.

What now seems to be the intention is to introduce de facto a different Bill. That means that the Government are saying, "Thank you very much for wasting your time. You gabbled away on a Bill which has ceased to exist. You put down amendments to a text which is no longer operative. You must have had a lot of fun." I do not believe that it is right for the Government to treat hon. Members in this way. I am bound to say that I share the view of the hon. Member for Henley that the way in which the Under-Secretary moved the motion today added to the offence.

I sympathise with my hon. Friend. It must be no easy or pleasant task to be pitchforked into a major Bill at this late stage. I fancy that he will not find it an easy time on Report, whether it be two, three or four days. Nevertheless, he ought to have come clean with us. He ought to have said what the extra time is wanted for. It is true that the Government made a considerable number, perhaps an almost unprecedented number, of concessions to both sides of the Committee. The then Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), in the period when he was Minister of State, and the then Under-Secretary showed a readiness to listen, to understand and to keep an open mind on amendments. This is something which we do not very often see.

As a result, I did not count the number of times but it must have been 40 or 50—they said, "If the hon. Member will withdraw his amendment we will have a look at this and produce something on Report". That makes a lot of work on paper. But it is only on paper, because nearly every one of those concessions was to meet the wishes of the Committee and therefore members of the Committee would not object to amendments embodying them. They were all pretty well non-controversial. Some of them were no more than marginal or tidying up.

We could get through that lot without any difficulty in a single day. We have therefore to ask, why two days? Even more, why three days? The Downing Street leaking machine—which functions with very great efficiency and is the most productive unit in this country—has made it clear what is going on. The Government need more time because they are to introduce amendments that are of considerable substance which totally alter the nature of the Bill.

I can understand the protests of the hon. Member for Henley, but if I had been in his position I would not have been making a fuss about it. I would have taken it all very quietly. The hon. Member must know that he has won. He has got everything—perhaps not everything but nearly everything—that he and his party wanted by way of changes to the Bill. He must know that for all practical purposes, and certainly for the purposes laid down for the Bill in the policy statement of the Labour Party, the Bill is as dead as the dodo.

Mr. Heseltine

I have considered the point the hon. Member makes. Naturally I would be delighted if I thought that he was right. Perhaps I have a little more respect for the Prime Minister than the hon. Member's remarks suggest that he has. Leaks can be leaked for all sorts of reasons. When I see the amendments to the Bill I may believe what the hon. Member says.

Mr. Mikardo

I take that point. The hon. Member and I and all the rest of us will be wiser not merely when we see the Government amendments but when we see, if ever we do—if they are not kept secret—the Prime Minister's guide- lines, written in his own fair, lily-white hand, to the Secretary of State about the action or inaction which he is to take with regard to this Bill. We shall all have to wait quite a while to be wiser. We shall not be fully the wiser when we see the amendments. We shall be fully the wiser when we see what happens as a result of the passage of this Bill.

I have a horrible feeling that when that day comes we shall find that what I have said to the hon. Member about his having won will turn out to be all too true. I am not suggesting that he should be walking about, to steal the expression used by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton, looking like the cat who has got the cream. But I do not think he ought to put on sackcloth and ashes either. The hon. Member has won.

The National Enterprise Board will not do anything beyond what it is doing with British Leyland. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton made the point that it is entirely limited, apart from all the other limitations which will be placed upon it in these hand-written directives, by the amount of money that it has available. The only money available to it is hypothecated for British Leyland. There is no National Enterprise Board, there is a British Leyland holding company which is called the National Enterprise Board.

As for the other important parts of the Bill on which we spent so many weary hours—planning agreements and disclosure—we shall have to wait and see what the amendments are.

I shall vote against this motion. To do otherwise would be illogical. I speak for no one other than myself. My point is simply that we could have managed in less than two days to carry out the normal process of adjustment that always needs to be carried out after Committee stage. Since far more time than that is to be allocated, it is clear that it is to be allocated because there are to be major changes. It is clear to anyone with any political nous that those changes will not be in the direction that I want but in the direction wanted by Conservative Members. I cannot, therefore, logically vote to provide more time for that purpose.

Mr. Crawford

Not all Members of the Opposition welcome all the changes that are to appear in the Bill, because members of the Scottish National Party fear that the writ of the NEB will run in Scotland. We would not welcome that.

Mr. Mikardo

The hon. Gentleman will be able to speak on that matter, whether we have two or three days. I look forward to hearing him argue his case. For the present the amendments may or may not be welcome— they are not welcome to me but they may well be welcome to the Conservative Party—and therefore it would be utterly illogical for me to vote for the provision of more time in order to enable amendments to be moved and carried when they are amendments to which I am opposed. That is why, in addition to voting against the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Henley, I shall also vote against my right hon. Friend's motion. I am deeply suspicious about what the Government are getting up to.

I end, as I began, by saying that it will be a long time before anyone induces me to sit again on a Standing Committee, knowing that 40 sessions of. 2½ hours were, for all practical purposes, thrown into the dustbin.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling)

I should have thought that both sides of the House could agree, on a dispassionate assessment of what the Committee did not cover and of what was undertaken during the Committee proceedings, that three days cannot be sufficient time to enable all parties to give adequate consideration to the Bill on Report. I should like briefly to endeavour to demonstrate that point.

The Bill has left Committee with a considerable number of the amendments and new clauses undiscussed. I do not want, at present, in any way to apportion blame to any party for that. However, I remind the House that when the Bill left Committee there were a total of 49 amendments, five new clauses and two new schedules undiscussed. All of those items raised substantive points not merely from the official Opposition but from the Liberal Party and from Labour back benchers. In my view, at least a day should be allocated as a minimum to discuss on the Floor of the House what the Committee was unable to cover.

As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has said, during the course of the Committee proceedings Ministers showed that they were prepared to give serious consideration to a number of the amendments that were put down by Members on both sides of the Committee. They promised consideration during the Report stage. The former Secretary of State, the former Minister of State and the former Under-Secretary all gave a string of assurances that they would reconsider on Report a number of highly technical but important matters. The Bill left Committee after Ministers had firmly promised a total of 24 new Government amendments, which are due to come before us on Report. They also promised to reconsider a further 43 matters before Report, with a view to possible additional amendments. Therefore, a substantial volume of work can be expected on Report.

If we aggregate the items that were undiscussed in Committee with the items on which firm Government amendments have been promised on Report, and with the items which the Government have firmly promised to reconsider for Report, we already come to a total of 123 items which are legitimate subjects for the Report stage. That is before further consideration is given to additional Government amendments and amendments from the Opposition parties which were represented on the Standing Committee, and those which were not such as the Scottish National Party.

If we have merely three days to consider only the 123 new items, that allows 8.8 minutes for the consideration of each item. Even stretched over three days, that will not be sufficient for adequate consideration of the Bill on Report. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will give serious consideration to supporting the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine).

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Kaufman

I apologise to my hon. Friends for intervening and cutting out their speeches. I should not have wished to do so, but, as my hon. Friends and the House will be aware, this debate is guillotined, and I am sure that the House, after the points that have been raised, would wish me to have a reasonable amount of time to reply. However, I assure the House that I should not have sought to cut out other speeches on this motion.

The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) argued very much to the contrary the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). The hon. Gentleman implied that the time would be insufficient, whereas my hon. Friends implied that the time would be too much if the Government were not to have ulterior motives with regard to amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow pointed out, in view of the assurances given by my right hon. and hon. Friends during Committee a considerable number of amendments would in any event flow from Committee. My hon. Friend also said that in his view two days would be more than enough to deal with this matter. I point out that the time allocated, even the extended time which the Government propose, includes a substantial amount of time that would be provided for Third Reading as well as for Report.

The hon. Member for Henley seemed to imply that because of the consultations which are taking place outside the House it is wrong for us not to have a longer Report stage even than that proposed by the Government in the motion that we are putting before the House today. When the original guillotine motion was moved last month I do not recall the hon. Gentleman making any complaints about the time allocated for Report. His hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) complained but I do not recall the hon. Gentleman doing so. The hon. Gentleman was well aware at that time—and I think it is necessary to draw this matter to the attention of my hon. Friends—that consultations were to take place.

The present Secretary of State for Energy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), made the position perfectly clear in a speech which he made on the guillotine motion on 12th May. I hope that my hon. Friends will listen, because this matter is very relevant to the remarks that they made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East said: we have made it clear that after the Committee stage, in which many of these points will arise on an amendment, there will be further consultation with both the CBI and the TUC. In the course of these consultations it obviously flows and follows that a Government engaged in them will listen to what is said and will seek, in pursuit of what we say in Committee, if we think it right, to table amendments on Report. These consultations will take place after the Committee stage, when we have had an opportunity to consider the matter in the light of the Committee's deliberations."—[Official Report, 12th May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 116–117.] Therefore, the hon. Member for Henley was never in any doubt that when the House voted for two days on Report and Third Reading the Government would take into account not only the Committee proceedings but the consultations which my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State made completely clear were to take place with the CBI and the TUC.

Mr. Mikardu

That is precisely what I and my hon. Friends are so het up about. Why could not those consultations take place before we ended the Committee stage? What was the point of going through the charade of the Committee stage only to be faced by a new Bill? Why was not the Committee stage suspended? Why did not the consultations take place before the Government laid the Bill? This is a new and daft idea. People have worked for 100 hours and at the end the Government say "Now we shall start all over again."

Mr. Kaufman

I say to my hon. Friend with respect that those were questions he should have put to my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State when he moved the guillotine motion which my hon. Friend supported. My right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear that those consultations would take place after the Committee stage had ended. If my hon. Friend, for reasons which I respect and accept, objects to consultations after the Committee stage, it would have been appropriate for him to state those objections to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Heffer

My hon. Friend has read a speech made by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Industry. Would he care to read my speech in that debate? I spoke of the possibility of secret deals, and received the assurance from my right hon. Friend that there would be none.

Mr. Kaufman

My hon. Friend may be sure that I intended to quote from his speech. When I reply to his remarks I intend to quote very fairly from what he said in that debate.

Mr. Heseltine rose——

Mr. Kaufman

I have limited time, so I should prefer not to give way. I wish to respond to what has been said in the debate, and I have told the hon. Member for Bridgwater that I shall give him some time to wind up on the amendment. If there is time after I have responded to the debate, I shall readily give way to the hon. Member for Henley, but it would be a discourtesy to my hon. Friends if I did not reply to their remarks as well as the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley).

Mr. Heseltine rose——

Mr. Kaufman

I have told the hon. Gentleman that we are under a time limitation.

Mr. Heseltine rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)

Order. We can have only one speaker at a time. I hope that another hon. Member will be able to speak after the Minister replies.

Mr. Kaufman

I have told the hon. Gentleman that I shall give way to him later if there is time.

The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing made a great deal about the amount of ground still to cover, but such remarks are always made in guillotine debates. In this case the Standing Committee reached Clause 23 of a 30-clause Bill, and there are now to be three days for Report and Third Reading. On the Housing Finance Bill, which the hon. Gentleman's party guillotined, the Committee reached only Clause 70 of a 103-clause Bill, and there were then only two days on Report, followed by one day for Third Reading. Therefore, I shall accept criticisms about other matters, but I shall not accept criticism about that.

The hon. Member for Henley and my hon. Friend the Member for Walton were both apprehensive about the amount of time that would be available to consider amendments, especially, in my hon. Friend's case, because of apprehensions about the possible scope of those amendments. Therefore, I give the assurance that the Government will do their best to ensure that there will be adequate time for consideration of Government amendments before Report. Those who served on the Standing Committee will know that my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State undertook that, apart from giving the House as a whole information, he would write to all members of the Standing Committee individually informing them of changes that would take place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walton very fairly asked me to refer to his speech on 12th May in the debate on the guillotine motion. I have read it with the care which my hon. Friend knows I always devote to his remarks and interventions in the House. He made clear in that debate his apprehensions about what might happen in consultations with the CBI and the TUC. I know that my hon. Friend will not quarrel with my quoting the following words. I am not quoting them out of context; I have made it clear that they are in context. After an intervention by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), my hon. Friend said: There is nothing wrong with discussions with the CBI or anyone else. Discussions should go on with all interested parties. He also said—and I in no way quarrel with this, because he stated the position as aptly and accurately as it could be stated when he was warning about his attitude to secret deals, as he put it: Of course, despite all the talk of secret deals, this will not happen. Such things have been said in the past, but in the last analysis this House will decide on the legislation."— [Official Report, 12th May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 135.]

Mr. Heffer

I said that I hoped it would.

Mr. Kaufman

My hon. Friend said this categorically.

Mr. Heffer

My hon. Friend knows that I was being ironical. Perhaps I shall never be ironical again. I was saying quite clearly that of course it would not happen, assuming my right hon. Friend took note of what we on this side of the House were saying. But if it does happen, and there are secret deals, we are in an entirely new ball game, and my hon. Friend and the Government had better recognise it.

Mr. Kaufman

Of course, I accept what my hon. Friend says. It is a problem about Hansard that although it prints words in brackets such as "Laughter" and "Interruption" it does not say "Irony". I did not hear my hon. Friend's speech, but only read it, and I apologise if I misinterpreted it. I did not seek to do so. As I am sure my hon. Friend will acknowledge, I read it with care, and I think that he will accept that I have quoted from it accurately.

My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow were both apprehensive about the attitude of members of the CBI upon their emergence from their talks with my right hon. Friends yesterday. There have been a number of interpretations of the outcome of those talks. That well-informed and learned newspaper, the Sun, had as its headline this morning to the report of what took place: Wilson bows to firms". But the Daily Mirror had as its headline: Wilson's shock for the CBI". Its report began: Industry chiefs were shocked last night to find that the Government is not likely to give them any major concessions in a redrafted Industry Bill. It is not for me on this motion to indicate what kind of amendments there may be. As I pointed out earlier, consultations with the TUC, for example, are continuing. But I will say to my hon. Friends—and I say it advisedly—that there will be no emasculation of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow pointed to my late arrival in the Department of Industry. I have not spent 15 months carrying out Labour Party policy in the Department of the Environment in order to come to this Department and sell out Labour Party policy there. I have come here to carry out the policy of this Government, and that is what I intend to do.

In the light of what I have said, I ask the House—

Mr. Richard Wainwright rose——

Mr. Kaufman

I have promised the hon. Member for Bridgwater that I shall give him five minutes, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will permit me to give way to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright).

Mr. Richard Wainwright

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because I know that he pleaded just now for time to reply fully to the debate.

Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to the statement made from the Scottish National Party bench, as well as from the Liberal Bench, that concessions made by the Government to one party in Committee are not necessarily at all acceptable to other parties, and that time must be given to ventilate at least seven points of view?

Mr. Kaufman

One of the problems about parliamentary debate is that concessions to one side are often not acceptable to another. We shall have to wait to see who is satisfied at the end of the day.

In the light of what I have said, I hope that hon. Members will agree that it is right to extend the final consideration of the Bill by one day, but that the Opposition are being extravagant, particularly in view of their cavalier attitude towards guillotine motions in the past, in putting forward their amendment. I trust that the House will reject the amendment.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)

There are divided points of view on both sides of the House about the Bill. It has become clear from this brief debate that hon. Members on both sides of the House are united in their concern about the way in which Parliament and the Standing Committee have been treated over this whole matter.

This has not been a party political debate. Speeches by back benchers of all parties have expressed concern about the contempt with which the Standing Committee has been treated after no fewer than 40 sittings on the Bill. The latter proceedings of the Committee have been described as a farce. The last two sittings were certainly reduced to absolute uselessness for any member of the Committee. We had a total change of Ministers. We now face the Report stage with a completely new set of Ministers, not one of whom played any part in the Committee stage of the Bill, except in its futile last passages. The ease with which the extra day was granted when the Secretary of State promised to press the Leader of the House for it was some confirmation of the embarrassment in which even the Government admitted finding themselves in a quite unprecedented situation.

The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) put the matter very well when he said that the situation is rather ludicrous because we have to vote on this motion when we do not yet know what we are being expected to discuss and how many amendments have been tabled.

The Minister made great play of the fact that we were warned in the debate on the timetable motion that there would be discussions. There is one simple fallacy in what he has said and I am sure that Labour Members who have expressed concern will have spotted it. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), the Secretary of State for Energy, is reported at col. 116 of Hansard for 12th May as having spoken about discussions, but it was made clear that there would be only two days for Report. We now have a situation in which there will be discussions—yes—but apparently there are grounds for even the Government conceding three days for Report. I well understand the concern of Labour Members about this situation.

As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) said, any-

Division No. 237.]	AYES	[4.44 p.m.
Adley, Robert	Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Alison, Michael	Bryan, Sir Paul	Drayson, Burnaby
Arnold, Tom	Buchanan-Smith. Alick	Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Bulmer, Esmond	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Bain, Mrs Margaret	Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Elliott, Sir William
Baker, Kenneth	Churchill, W. S.	Emery, Peter
Beith, A. J.	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Bell, Ronald	Cockcroft, John	Eyre, Reginald
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Fairgrieve, Russell
Biffen, John	Cope, John	Fell, Anthony
Biggs-Davison, John	Cordle, John H.	Finsberg, Geoffrey
Blaker, Peter	Costain, A. P.	Fisher, Sir Nigel
Body, Richard	Crawford, Douglas	Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)	Critchley, Julian	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Braine, Sir Bernard	Crouch, David	Fookes, Miss Janet
Brittan, Leon	Dean, Paul (N Somerset)	Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Brotherton, Michael	Dodsworth, Geoffrey	Freud, Clement

one who is not totally politically naive knows that discussions of substance are taking place—and the Government have now conceded an extra day for Report. I entirely sympathise with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow in a parliamentary sense, although he knows that I do not share his views in a party political sense. However, in a parliamentary sense, the points he made were valid. He was a little illogical in the conclusion that he drew because his argument was that if there are further amendments, it is illogical to allow any extra time because they will probably be amendments which Labour Members would not like and, therefore, we should not spend extra time on them.

However, the crux of the matter is that we are under a timetable motion. The other alternative is that the amendments will be moved and carried without discussion. Amendments may be carried which are against the opinion and wishes of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow without his even having the opportunity in Parliament to make his opposition to them or criticism of them clear.

If new amendments are tabled—and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is concerned that they will be, to use a Scottish word, "without" the previous discussion of the Committee—they must be amendments that we have an opportunity to discuss.

It is for those reasons that there must be adequate time for discussion on Report. Four days is the minimum that we should have.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 192.

Fry, Peter	Knight, Mrs Jill	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Lane, David	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)	Lawrence, Ivan	Shersby, Michael
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)	Lawson, Nigel	Silvester, Fred
Glyn, Dr Alan	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Sinclair, Sir George
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)	Luce, Richard	Skeet, T. H. H.
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)	MacCormick, Iain	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Macfarlane, Neil	Speed, Keith
Gray, Hamish	MacGregor, John	Spence, John
Grieve, Percy	Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.	McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	Sproat, Iain
Grist, Ian	Mather, Carol	Stanbrook, Ivor
Grylls, Michael	Maude, Angus	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Hampson, Dr Keith	Mawby, Ray	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Hannam, John	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Stokes, John
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Stradling Thomas, J.
Hawkins, Paul	Mills, Peter	Tapsell, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney	Miscampbell, Norman	Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Henderson, Douglas	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Tebbit, Norman
Heseltine, Michael	Moate, Roger	Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Higgins, Terence L.	Montgomery, Fergus	Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Hooson, Emlyn	Moore, John (Croydon C)	Thompson, George
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral	Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Townsend, Cyril D.
Hunt, John	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)	Tugendhat, Christopher
Hurd, Douglas	Mudd, David	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Neave, Airey	Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Neubert, Michael	Wakeham, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)	Page, John (Harrow West)	Warren, Kenneth
James, David	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)	Watt, Hamish
Jessel, Toby	Parkinson, Cecil	Weatherill, Bernard
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Penhaligon, David	Welsh, Andrew
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)	Percival, Ian	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Jopling, Michael	Prior, Rt Hon James
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Rathbone, Tim	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Kershaw, Anthony	Ridley, Hon Nicholas	Mr Adam Butler and
King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Rifkind, Malcolm	Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.
	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

NOES
Allaun, Frank	Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)	Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Anderson, Donald	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Armstrong, Ernest	Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ashton, Joe	de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)	Delargy, Hugh	Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Atkinson, Norman	Dempsey, James	Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Doig, Peter	Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Bates, Alf	Dormand, J. D.	Janner, Greville
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N.)	Duffy, A. E. P.	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Bidwell, Sydney	Dunn, James A.	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Edge, Geoff	Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Booth, Albert	Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur	English, Michael	Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)	Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Kaufman, Gerald
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Evans, John (Newton)	Kerr, Russell
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Buchan, Norman	Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.	Lambie, David
Buchanan, Richard	Flannery, Martin	Lamborn, Harry
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Lamond, James
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Ford, Ben	Lee, John
Campbell, Ian	Forrester, John	Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Canavan, Dennis	Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Cant, R. B.	Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)	Lipton, Marcus
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)	Litterick, Tom
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara	George, Bruce	Lomas, Kenneth
Clemitson, Ivor	Gilbert, Dr John	Loyden, Eddie
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)	Golding, John	Luard, Evan
Cohen, Stanley	Gourlay, Harry	Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Coleman, Donald	Graham, Ted	McElhone, Frank
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen	Grant, George (Morpeth)	MacFarquhar, Roderick
Conlan, Bernard	Grant, John (Islington C)	McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Corbett, Robin	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Mackenzie, Gregor
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)	Mackintosh, John P.
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)	Hardy, Peter	Madden, Max
Crawshaw, Richard	Harper, Joseph	Marks, Kenneth
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Marquand, David
Cryer, Bob	Hatton, Frank	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)	Hayman, Mrs Helena	Maynard, Miss Joan
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)	Heffer, Eric S.	Meacher, Michael
Dalyell, Tam	Horam, John	Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Davidson, Arthur	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Mendelson, John
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Huckfield, Les	Mikardo, Ian

Millan, Bruce	Rooker, J. W.	Tomlinson, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Roper, John	Tomney, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)	Rose, Paul B.	Tuck, Raphael
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Newens, Stanley	Rowlands, Ted	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Noble, Mike	Sandelson, Neville	Wellbeloved, James
Ovenden, John	Selby, Harry	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Palmer, Arthur	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)	White, James (Pollock)
Park, George	Silverman, Julius	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Parker, John	Skinner, Dennis	Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Pavitt, Laurie	Small, William	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Pendry, Tom	Spearing, Nigel	Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)'
Phipps, Dr Colin	Spriggs, Leslie	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Prescott, John	Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Price, C. (Lewisham W)	Stott, Roger	Woodall, Alec
Price, William (Rugby)	Strang, Gavin	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Radice, Giles	Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.	Young, David (Bolton E)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Richardson, Miss Jo	Taylor, Mrs Arm (Bolton W)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)	Mr. David Stoddart and
Robertson, John (Paisley)	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)	Mr. John Ellis
Roderick, Caerwyn	Tierney, Sydney
Rodgers, George (Chorley)	Tinn, James

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

Division No. 238.]	AYES	[4.55 p.m.
Allaun, Frank	Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Anderson, Donald	Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Lipton, Marcus
Armstrong, Ernest	English, Michael	Litterick, Tom
Ashton, Joe	Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Lomas, Kenneth
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)	Evans, John (Newton)	Luard, Evan
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Bain, Mrs Margaret	Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)	MacCormick, Iain
Bates, Alf	Faulds, Andrew	McElhone, Frank
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N.)	Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.	MacFarquhar, Roderick
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Flannery, Martin	McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Boardman, H.	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mackenzie, Gregor
Booth, Albert	Ford, Ben	Mackintosh, John P.
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Forrester, John	Madden, Max
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur	Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	Marks, Kenneth
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)	Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)	Marquand, David
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	George, Bruce	Maynard, Miss Joan
Buchan, Norman	Gilbert, Dr John	Meacher, Michael
Buchanan, Richard	Golding, John	Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)	Gourlay, Harry	Mendelson, John
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Graham, Ted	Millan, Bruce
Campbell, Ian	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Canavan, Dennis	Grant, John (Islington C)	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Cant, R. B.	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)	Newens, Stanley
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara	Hardy, Peter	Noble, Mike
Clemitson, Ivor	Harper, Joseph	Ovenden, John
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Palmer, Arthur
Cohen, Stanley	Hatton, Frank	Park, George
Coleman, Donald	Hayman, Mrs Helene	Parker, John
Conlan, Bernard	Heffer, Eric S.	Pavitt, Laurie
Corbett, Robin	Henderson, Douglas	Pendry, Tom
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Horam, John	Prescott, John
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Crawford, Douglas	Huckfield, Les	Price, William (Rugby)
Crawshaw, Richard	Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)	Radice, Giles
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Cryer, Bob	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)	Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)	Roderick, Caerwyn
Dalyell, Tam	Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)	Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Davidson, Arthur	Janner, Greville	Rooker, J. W.
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Roper, John
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Rose, Paul B.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Jones, Alec (Rhondda)	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)	Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Sandelson, Neville
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Delargy, Hugh	Kaufman, Gerald	Silverman, Julius
Dempsey, James	Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Small, William
Doig, Peter	Lambie, David	Spearing, Nigel
Duffy, A. E. P.	Lamborn, Harry	Spriggs, Leslie
Dunn, James A.	Lamond, James	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Edge, Geoff	Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 6.

Stoddart, David	Tomney, Frank	Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Stott, Roger	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Strang, Gavin	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.	Watt, Hamish	Woodall, Alec
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley	Welsh, Andrew	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)	White, Frank R. (Bury)	Young, David (Bolton E)
Thompson, George	White, James (Pollock)
Tierney, Sydney	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick	TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Tinn, James	Williams, Alan (Swansea W)	Mr. John Ellis and
Tomlinson, John	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)	Mr. J. D. Dormand.

NOES
Bidwell, Sydney	Selby, Harry	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen	Skinner, Dennis	Mr. Ian Mikardo and
Richardson, Miss Jo	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)	Mr. Stan Thorne.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered, That the Order of 12th May be supplemented by substituting the following paragraph for paragraph 2:—

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock on the last of those days: and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such part

of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading not later than 23rd June.

(3) The Resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further report so made, whether before or after 23rd June, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolution of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken'.