AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

HC Deb 08 November 1976 vol 919 cc94-124

6.11 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric Varley)

I beg to move, That the Order of 20th July 1976 be supplemented as follows—

Lords Amendments

1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

2. For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—

1. (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
2. (b) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
   1. (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended.
   2. (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
   3. (iii) put forthwith, with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, and
   4. (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
3. (c) so soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to such Lords Amendments.

Stage subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

1. (a) put forthwith the Question on any Motion which is made by a Minister of the Crown on any item,
2. (b) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment or other Proposal,
3. (c) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) So soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Proposals. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Motion made by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Proposals.

Supplemental

5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the Proceedings' means Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown under Standing Order No. 57(1) (Lords amendments) that the Proceedings shall be considered forthwith.

(3) Paragraph 1 of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Proceedings.

(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the Proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the question on such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(5) If the Proceedings are set down on any day as first Government Order of the Day paragraph 4 of the Order of 20th July 1976 (Private Business) shall apply as if that day were an allotted day.

(6) If the Proceedings were interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

I have heard it suggested in some quarters that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill has not been discussed adequately. The Bill was first introduced in April 1975. Although it was not proceeded with in that Session for lack of time, we treated it as a draft Bill as a basis of consultation. When it was re-introduced nearly a year ago in November last year, it already contained a number of significant amendments to meet points of anxiety raised with us by the companies and others concerned.

The Bill had its Second Reading on 2nd December last year. It was considered in Standing Committee for 58 sittings—the greatest number of sittings on any Bill at any time. The Standing Committee proceedings ran from December to June. The total time spent in this House and including Standing Committee was 184 hours.

Since then, the Bill has been debated in another place for 72 hours, with more to come on Third Reading tomorrow. In this House, more than 800 amendments were tabled in Committee and on Report. In another place, some 450 amendments have been tabled at Committee and Report stages. The Government have accepted, or have tabled themselves to meet assurances made to the Opposition at the various stages of the Bill in both Houses, a very substantial number of amendments.

Right through the long Committee stage in this House the Government sought to place no restrictions on debate. When, faced with the obvious intention of the Opposition to delay the Bill on Report, we put a timetable on remaining stages, we allowed more time for it—three days—than the Opposition had earlier indicated they would have been willing to accept without the guillotine. On the basis of this record, it would be flying in the face of truth to suggest that the Bill has had inadequate debate or that the Government have refused to listen to reasonable points raised during the Bill's passage.

I want now to make clear to the House that the changes made in another place are not revising amendments but wrecking amendments. Let me give a few examples. First, the extent of flexibility for the corporations to develop-their commercial activities has been sharply reduced by amendments to Clauses 2 and 3. Secondly, the industrial democracy provisions have been changed in ways already rejected by the House of Commons; restrictive interpretations have been written in, and forms of consultation which are gravely at odds with the Government's general industrial relations legislation.

Thirdly, the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene in the public interest have been sharply reduced, yet his powers to interfere to protect private sector competitors have been increased far beyond the Conservatives' own fair trading legislation.

Fourthly, it has overturned the carefully worked out and well-precedented compensation formula which was fair to both shareholder and taxpayer, and instead has left it to an arbitration tribunal, instead of Parliament, to decide not only the interpretation but also the basis of the compensation arrangements.

Fifthly, shiprepairing and warship-building have been removed entirely from the scope of nationalisation, contrary to the decision of this House. Finally, an amendment has been passed which puts the aircraft industry vesting date back till after the next General Election—creating more delay than the Parliament Act itself, and amounting to a constitutional challenge of the first order. That is not revising legislation but, as some of us have suggested elsewhere, it is disembowelling it.

The Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill estimated that some 145,000 people would come into the public sector because of it. The amendments to this Bill, on aircraft, shiprepairing and war-shipbuilding, cut that figure to about 40,000. That is what another place has thought proper to do to a Bill passed by this House.

The motion before the House represents an important stage in the consideration of this Bill by the House. I must make absolutely clear to the House the very serious consequences if this Bill fails to receive the Royal Assent this Session.

If the timetable motion is rejected today and if the Bill subsequently fails, decision about the future of these industries will have passed from the Government into the hands of those who reject the motion. Without the support of public funding through public ownership, shipyards are in danger of going down like dominoes, and that includes important shipyards in areas of high unemployment in Scotland. By denying the means, those who vote against this motion will have willed the consequences.

In order to survive as a shipbuilding nation, we must have a coherent and unified national strategy. Only public ownership can provide this. Every day when I go into my office at the Department of Industry, I am liable to find on my desk details of a new crisis facing a shipyard, almost certainly in a part of the country where unemployment is already unacceptably too high. We cannot go on in this piecemeal way, considering each case in isolation as it comes up—as the Opposition did when they nationalised Govan, for example.

The shipbuilding crisis is world-wide, and we must have a national policy to deal with it. The Organising Committee has already done excellent work, but it cannot make real progress in tackling the problems of the industry until the Bill is on the statute book.

The position is stark, and I know how those who work in the industry will regard the frivolous way in which these facts are treated by the Opposition. I repeat, the position is stark. World orders for new ships in 1975 were less than half those placed in 1974. In the first six months of 1976, they ran at an even lower rate. More than 30 million gross tons of tanker capacity are laid up. We must have a national organisation to deal with this very serious situation.

The existence of a significant civil aircraft industry in this country also depends on this Bill. If the aircraft industry remains in private hands, it will be because the Opposition parties have voted that its future should be governed by the free play of the market forces. Without public ownership, I see little prospect of major new civil aircraft projects. So, if this motion falls this evening and if the Bill subsequently fails, it will be for the Conservative and Liberal Parties and all the other Opposition parties which vote against them to explain to the workers at Filton, Hatfield and Weybridge how the future of their factories is to be preserved. It will be for the Conservatives, Liberals and Welsh nationalists to explain to the workers at Hawker Siddeley, Broughton, how the future of their jobs is to be secured.

Then there is Scottish Aviation. Last week, 400 further redundancies were declared—a token of the future if this firm does not come under public ownership, because the situation will deteriorate, as the management of Scottish Aviation recognises.

At Question Time this afternoon, my hon. Friend referred to the grave position for Scottish Aviation if this Bill does not go through. All Scottish Members should consider this situation seriously. It is vital for these industries that the Bill should reach the statute book this Session and the motion is an essential step in ensuring that. I urge the House to support it.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine (Henley)

One of the most intriguing features of the Secretary of State's speech was the contrast between the harrowing scene which he depicted as greeting him every morning at the Department with crisis after crisis on his desk and the lackadaisical process by which the Government have introduced this measure. What have they been doing for two and a half years? If it was, in their view, essential to nationalise these industries as the only way of saving them, why did they not introduce the Bill and try to push it through in their first one and a half years in office?

If they really thought that this Bill provided the only solution, one would have expected them to apply themselves to trying to get it through. Obviously, they did not regard it as being of such high priority that it should be given legislative time ahead of the other things to which they accorded greater priority.

The Government cannot have it both ways. They either believe in the reforming ability of a second Chamber, as they presumably intended in their Parliament Act 1949, or they do not. They cannot have a reforming second Chamber and then criticise it when it scrutinises legislation from this House.

If hon. Members opposite believe that another place should not have such powers, it is legitimate for them to seek to change that situation, but as long as the current constitutional position exists, another place is fully entitled to send back for further consideration any amendments it thinks correct.

One of the issues confronting the Government is the consequence of the dilatory way in which they have behaved over this legislation. On Second Reading, the Government had a majority of five; on Third Reading, a majority of three; and on this motion, on the basis of the current strengths of the parties, the best they could hope for is a majority of one.

Does anyone really believe that this gives the Government a case for nationalising two significant industries at a cost of £400 million to £500 million? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] It is because some hon. Members opposite believe that one is enough that they will find after the next by-election that they will not have even that majority. The Secretary of State repeated the argument which was deployed by the Minister of State during Question Time today and which we have heard many times before—that nationalisation will deal with the problem of unemployment in these industries. This argument is becoming shriller as time goes on. In the earlier stages of our consideration, the Secretary of State made clear that there would be redundancies in the industries and that the Government knew that both would have to be run down.

It is a delusion—to use a moderate word—to suggest that nationalisation offers any prospect of protecting jobs in these industries. The reality is that it prejudices jobs in these industries and in many others.

Let the Government explain how nationalisation will protect jobs in either industry. What difference will it make to Scottish Aviation that shares are simply changing ownership? Will the Government use taxpayers' money to subsidise losses in the company? Will they indulge in widespread blanket subsidies for the shipbuilding industry in order to maintain the present level of employment? If so, where will they get the funds? Has the Secretary of State not yet learned that the more funds the Government raise by borrowing or through taxation, the more they will perpetuate a climate of economic decline, the higher will be the rates of interest and the more jobs they will destroy in the rest of the manufacturing economy?

Of course, the Secretary of State knows that he cannot create jobs by buying support in the way he has suggested. His own Department played a significant part in the preparation of the Chequers strategy which made clear that the Government were going to deploy assets in productive and profitable sources. How can the right hon. Gentleman believe in that strategy and still hold out the prospect to thousands of workers that, if there are losses in their companies, the Government will continue to subsidise them? He cannot have it both ways.

The other argument pressed by the Secretary of State with great strength is that nationalisation is essential in order to protect jobs as a mechanistic device in itself. Yet the Government took into public ownership British Leyland, Alfred Herbert, Ferranti and Court Shipbuilders without any new legislation being passed. How can they suggest that they need to spend £400 million to £500 million to nationalise 42 companies, many of which are profitable and viable, when they were capable of nationalising the other companies to which I referred without any new legislation?

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman)

Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that we took British Leyland into public ownership through the British Leyland Act, which his party voted against?

Mr. Heseltine

The Minister is wrong again. The rescue of British Leyland took place under the Industry Act when this House gave £50 million in temporary support. It was only when the Government adopted the Ryder strategy and committed hundreds of millions of pounds that we needed legislation. The rescue of British Leyland was carried out without legislation.

The Secretary of State urged us earlier to be reasonable and moderate and to support the Government's industrial strategy. He made an appeal, which I have heard him make on many occasions, that we need a new sense of national unity behind the private sector, free enterprise society in order to give it a chance to succeed. There is no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman strikes a chord which is widely felt in the country and by many of my hon. Friends who would agree with that general thesis. But why is it always we who are expected to be reasonable and to support Socialist measures when hon. Members opposite will never be reasonable and support measures to help the private sector?

There is no compromise of any kind in this Bill. It is a doctrinaire measure to satisfy the power cravings of the Left in the Labour Party. Everybody knows it. The Bill does not even command the support of a substantial number of hon. Members opposite, but they are not prepared to risk internal dangers to their party by putting the national interest above party interest. That is why they are gathered here to try to steamroller this legislation through at a late hour in the hope of advancing the frontiers of Socialism irrespective of the interests of this nation.

Mr. Ron Thomas (Bristol, North-west)

As the Member for a constituency in Bristol, a city with 25,000 aircraft workers, I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments in this debate. I served on the Committee which considered this Bill, and in view of the hours spent there, at later stages in this House and at the end of the corridor, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that more than enough time has been devoted to the Bill.

In Committee, the Opposition were more concerned with how much compensation they could get for private shareholders than with the jobs of those in the industry, industrial democracy or the future of the industry.

The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) suggested that the House of Lords was a scrutinising and revising Chamber. But can he really suggest that in the light of some of the amendments that were considered and passed there? Is it a form of scrutiny to accept an amendment proposed in the House of Lords which would have the effect of deleting the aircraft industry from this measure? Is it a form of scrutiny to delete ship-repairing companies from the Bill? Is it a form of scrutiny to delete warship builders from the Bill? On what basis? It is because they are profitable ventures. The Opposition tell us that public ownership is all right provided that we take into public ownership bankrupt industries. We are fed up with that kind of approach.

There is an amendment to leave out Scottish Aviation and another amendment to the effect that the vesting date of the British Aerospace Corporation should be postponed until after the next General Election.

Anyone who goes through the House of Lords Hansard will see that time and again their Lordships have reiterated the speeches and arguments of the Opposition here. Again, they defended the sweetheart associations. They criticised our approach to industrial democracy. They want to put these industries into a straitjacket. We argue that the technological fall-out and skills in industries such as the aircraft industry should be allowed to diversify and to develop. Reading the debates in the House of Lords, it becomes clear time and again that that place is not a revisionary Chamber or the watchdog of the constitution but the poodle of the Opposition. It is high time, in the judgment of myself and many of my hon. Friends that that poodle was quietly put to sleep.

I remind my right hon. Friend, although he does not need reminding, that I have been inundated with letters and telegrams expressing the anxiety of aircraft workers who want the aircraft industry brought into public ownership as quickly as possible. The Government have the support of aircraft workers.

The hon. Member for Henley and some of his colleagues have received telegrams from Tory, Liberal and Labour shop stewards in the aircraft industry condemning them for the way they have held up this important legislation and the effect that this could have on jobs.

Mr. Geoffrey Pattie (Chertsey and Walton)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thomas

No. The public ownership of these industries—

Mr. Pattie

On the hon. Gentleman's point regarding the support of workers in the aircraft industry, will he tell me how much support there is at BAC Warton? Is he aware of a petition signed by several thousand employees at Warton saying that they do not want nationalisation?

Mr. Thomas

BAC Filton—

Mr. Pattie

BAC Warton.

Mr. Thomas

The Leader of the Opposition has had telegrams from Conservative aircraft workers, from the BAC shop stewards' committee and the whole mass of BAC workers at Filton demanding to know why the Opposition have continued to delay the Bill purely on the basis of political dogma, ignoring the impact that it will have on jobs and the future of the industry.

Public ownership of the aircraft, shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries was spelt out in our February and October 1974 election manifestos. They are issues on which we fought the February and October 1974 General Elections. As far as I am concerned, these are important measures to bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of wealth and power in favour of working people and their families. These measures have overwhelming support. I am sure that the House will pass the motion tonight.

6.34 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East)

The guillotine procedure has become part of our accepted parliamentary practice, but it is important that what is intended as an aid to the conduct of parliamentary business should not degenerate into an abuse of power and an obstacle to free discussion.

If abuse is to be prevented, certain criteria must be respected. There must be a reasonable relationship between the timetable suggested and the amount of scrutiny given to a Bill. In particular, the timetable should seek to avoid creating a situation in which large parts of a Bill have no discussion in either House at any stage. There must also be a reasonable relationship with the importance of the Bill to the nation.

When dealing with Lords amendments, there should be a reasonable relationship between the timetable suggested and the amount of time given by the other place to the evolution and discussion of its amendments. The attitude of this House to amendments proposed in another place must also, in accordance with our constitutional principle, have regard to the evidence of the degree of public support outside Parliament for the attitude of the other place. All these criteria have failed to be respected in this timetable motion.

Of the 57 clauses of the Bill, 46 have not been discussed in this House. The amendments proposed in the other place are the product of long, serious and late discussion.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Luton, West)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not get paid much for this brief.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

Regarding public support, I suggest—not that I expect the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) to understand it—si monumentum requiris, circumspice. I shall translate for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch and Lymington)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) to shout across to my right hon. and learned Friend that he "will not get paid much for this brief"?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The throwing of charges is always undesirable, and I deprecate it. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who has been a Member as long as I have, knows how to deal with an interruption of that kind.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

If you please, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Luton, West must not draw from his own unhappy professional experience. I was about to translate for his benefit: "If you want to see the Government's tombstone, look at Workington and Walsall."

I should like to make one other specific point in addition to the general point which I have made. It appears, this time in the ship-repairing provisions of the Bill, that there is an element of hybridity. The Government have been challenged in the other place on the validity of their list of companies and on their compliance with the statutory criteria for inclusion set out in Part II of Schedule 2.

A series of questions has been put by Viscount Colville of Culross, himself an eminent lawyer, and those questions have been purported to be answered by the Lord Privy Seal seeking to justify the Government's position. Those answers have been submitted to an eminent Queen's Counsel, and his opinion has been—

Mr. William Small (Glasgow, Garscadden)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is one allowed to quote anyone other than a Minister in the other place?

Mr. Speaker

A direct quotation is possible only if one is referring to the speech of a Minister, unless it is a speech by a Member of the other House in another Session of Parliament.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

I am well aware of these parliamentary conventions. I have made no direct quotation. I do not intend to make a direct quotation from anything said in the other House. I propose to quote—this is certainly in order—the opinion of an eminent Queen's Counsel on this matter. His opinion is that certain companies referred to in the answer given by the Lord Privy Seal, and not now listed in the Bill, call for inclusion on a correct interpretation of criteria. In other words, it is another clear case of hybridity.

The eminent Queen's Counsel goes on to say: As the Bill is now drawn, the Government's expressed views about its interpretation, and application to matters contained in the Lord Privy Seal's answer, are unsound and wrong. That means that the other place has uncovered another case of hybridity, just as in other provisions my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) did here.

The relevance to this motion is that Amendments Nos. 217 and 219 made in the other place and designed to remove ship-repairing companies come at the end of the Bill and, therefore, are unlikely to be debated during a six-hour guillotine debate. In that case, they will be put to the vote forthwith. If the Government carry a motion to disagree, the other place may either restore those provisions or proceed in regard to the hybridity. If it restores them, and if the Government wish to maintain their position, they must invoke the provisions of the Parliament Act.

If the other place passes a motion to refer the Bill, either as a whole or the ship-repairing provisions, to the examiners, that examination would in all probability not be resolved by the 24th of this month. Therefore, the Bill would either fall or prorogation would be postponed. Clearly, if the examination shows hybridity, as I submit it probably would, the consequent procedures must bring one or other of those results.

It is clear from our experience in the summer in this House and from the experience in the other place this month that the Government's understanding on the issue of hybridity is tenuous indeed and is likely to be improved only after a full and proper opportunity for examination in debate such as is clearly not afforded by this timetable.

This is a bad motion and a bad timetable, for reasons both general and specific. It derives from a Bill injurious in intent, defective in drafting, imperfectly understood by its sponsors and inadequately discussed by Parliament. As such, the motion should be rejected and condemned.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh (Berwick and East Lothian)

I have the privilege at the moment, Mr. Speaker, of reading and reviewing a book written by your predecessor in the Chair which is due to be published on Wednesday. In this book he says that one of the depressing experiences of anybody in the Chair is listening to debates on guillotine motions because, he says, one could shut one's eyes and hear the same speeches made by the other side on the appropriate occasion. He refers to accusations of dictatorship and Fascism made by those opposed to the motion, while those who argue in favour of the guillotine say that the Bill has been discussed endlessly and must go through.

We cannot get away from the fact that the attitude to a guillotine motion is totally intertwined with people's attitude not so much to the powers of the House or to the position of the other Chamber but to the merits of the measure. I know that many of my hon. Friends have signed a motion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in which they say that they will not support a guillotine motion on a devolution measure because they dislike that measure and that that would be a way of killing it even if they were not prepared to vote against the principle of the measure. We know the Opposition's attitude and the power struggle that is going on in this House.

I do not think it is any secret that many hon. Members are unhappy about some of the measures that are being forced through tonight. If I had a free vote, I should vote 100 per cent. for the pay beds Bill, completely for the Education Bill and on the whole for the Rent (Agriculture) Bill—[Interruption]. I have a vote, and so has the hon. Gentleman, and I voted with reluctance for the Dock Work Regulation Bill.

We know the score. We know the way party programmes are produced. Those on the Government side have voted for these Bills from First Reading to Third Reading. It is odd to expect anyone who has done that to change his vote now, though we know that both parties take their programmes as package deals. Hon. Members know all the items to which they are subscribing when they stand for election. The Dock Work Regulation Bill is one of these items. Individual Members may have grave doubts about certain measures, but we take them on that understanding.

What I find depressing and worrying is that the party lines that were drawn up in 1974 are not relaxing at all with the economic crisis. Indeed, they are hardening—[Interruption]. I am trying, in all seriousness, to make an argument. The argument is that, although we fought the last General Election on certain matters, there are certain things that hon. Members on both sides of the House do not support 1,000 per cent.

There is now a new situation. There is the national humiliation that we have suffered during the last three months. There is the evidence that policies, for which I am blaming no one, which we as a nation have pursued over a decade of economic decline, are now coming home to roost. This is one reason why I shall support getting these measures out of the way. I do not think that it benefits us to fight over these issues any more. I want to see us applying ourselves to the economic problems facing the country.

I put it to the Opposition and to my Front Bench that one of the most depressing things from the country's point of view is that this House has been here since 11th October, yet we have had only one day's debate on the crucial economic issues facing us. We have talked about matters left over from the past which are not relevant now. This is the fault of both sides of the House, and the shouts of Tory Members have indicated that they are interested not so much in the country's point of view but in that of their party.

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)

I compliment the hon. Gentleman on the courage with which he is speaking, but surely, if he is to be consistent in his argument, he must concede that the expenditure involved in this measure is wrong at the present time, as he has clearly indicated.

Mr. Mackintosh

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I regret that the consistency argument catches those of us who have supported these measures as part of a party programme and requires that we continue to support them. If we had laid down markers six months or nine months ago, that might have been different, but I ask Conservative Members to consider whether they are helping if they proceed with this kind of battle rather than apply themselves to the current problems facing this country.

The issue will come to a crisis when we have the package of measures that the IMF will demand of this House and of the Government. When they come before us, will we tackle them in a manner that means the two sides facing each other deadlocked? The speech of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) at the Conservative Party Conference did nothing to help towards a cross-party approach to our economic problems. If that attitude persists, the two sides will face each other and only one thing will be able to resolve it, and that will be a series of by-elections. It will be a disaster if the public have to enforce some sense upon this House.

If the recent by-election results are taken to be a simple desire on the part of the public for the continuation of the two-party conflict and the substitution of one Government for another, I can only say that Conservative Members have misread the mood of the country. They have misread it deeply, and the more they press their point in this implacable way the more they will unite the forces on this side of the House and the tougher the two battle lines will become. That will mean no change of Government for at least 18 months or two years, because the Government can continue if they hold on.

I hope that the kind of silly counterattacks that we have seen tonight will desist after 24th November and that both sides will look at the package required by the IMF and the economic problems facing us and try to meet them in a manner that will restore some confidence to this country. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to recognise that the kind of battle that they are fighting tonight does this country no good.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)

As we discuss this timetable motion, as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) rightly said, this country faces the worst economic crisis since 1929. But he is wrong in supporting this measure, because it will make that crisis worse. Labour Members must understand the situation. Today the pound slipped by another 1½c. The stock market is down by another 17 points, affecting the pension funds of workers represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

The Labour Party has to realise that if the Government continue to thrust nationalisation down the throats of millions of voters who are absolutely against it, that will not assist them to meet the requirements of the International Monetary Fund or of our foreign creditors. If the Government would listen to the views of many of their supporters in another place and drop or postpone this legislation, that would be the biggest single factor in assisting the pound and giving confidence to international financiers.

I believe that the conditions that the IMF will demand of this Government will be worse because of these nationalisation measures. If the Government would drop this measure, the requirements of the IMF would be eased. Even at this late hour, surely some semblance of common sense could be brought to our affairs by the Prime Minister. Can he not see that: the nation would benefit if nationalisation were not pursued now? I do not ask him to give up his dogma but to put Socialist dogma, for once, second to the needs of the country.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, Central)

I was a member of the Committee which debated this Bill for many long hours. Opportunity after opportunity was given to the Opposition to raise many of the points which have now been discussed in the House of Lords. Some of the issues were raised in Committee. Many others, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) pointed out, were not raised in Committee because the Opposition were more concerned with compensation.

We all agree that the national interest comes first. We must all have the broadest measure of consent in what we are seeking to achieve in righting our country's economic wrongs. It would be as wrong for us, as for the Conservative Party to lend our support to measures which are not in the national interest and not capable of righting our nation's economy.

What people outside do not realise is that when we debate these measures there is disagreement not about the diagnosis but about the remedy for our country's illness. If we were to follow the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Tiverton—

Mr. Peter Emery

Honiton.

Mr. McNamara

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. There are a lot of ship-workers in that part of the country. If we followed the hon. Member's argument, we would find that shipbuilding company after shipbuilding company would go bankrupt. What would happen to the aircraft industry if it did not have public investment? Again, there would be unemployment and more unemployment.

If we want to maintain these two proud industries, if we are to organise and have the regeneration and re-investment that we need to keep our proud shipbuilding industry in the face of difficult international competition, if we are to have a viable aircraft industry, it is essential that this Bill goes through. The workers in my constituency who are involved in the shipbuilding and aircraft industries have only one regret—that not every part of the earlier Bill is to be carried into effect and that we have not nationalised Drypool as we should have done in the first place.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Thanet, West)

It was the sophists of the French Revolution who said simply "if our second chamber disagrees with the first chamber, it is mischievous. If it does not disagree it is superfluous." That is the attitude adopted now by Labour Members but I remind the Father of the House the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and others who may have a clear recollection of the position between 1947 and 1949 that it was not the attitude adopted then. The other place moved 1,222 amendments to 10 major Socialist Bills during that time and of those only 57, or fewer than 5 per cent., were rejected by this House. That took place during a period which was completely revisionary and sensible.

Yet, in the face of that, it will be remembered that there was a Parliament Act in 1949. That was introduced on three occasions. There was a Second Reading in November 1947, another in January 1948 and the final occasion was in 1949 when the Parliament Act received the Royal Assent.

The relevance of this is that last week the Race Relations Bill returned from consideration in the other place and every single amendment which had been passed by the Lords was automatically reversed here. On this measure we face not a matter of debate but a steamroller machine in which all the amendments which have been carefully considered in another place will be reversed—

Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone)

Wrecking amendments.

Mr. Rees-Davies

They are not wrecking amendments. Many of the amendments we have been discussing on the other Bills are far from being anything of the kind. If only 5 per cent. was reversed during 1947 and 1949, what chance have we here?

The truth is that the Government and their supporters have turned the work of this House into a charade. It is no longer possible for another place to carry out its work properly. It has neither the time nor the opportunity. When it spends a great many hours doing its work properly, it finds that every one of its amendments is thrust aside willy-nilly, even if it has the support of the Liberal Party and Cross-benchers.

That makes this debate different from a normal guillotine debate. This is because the Government are concerned, not so much with the quantum of discussion as with the content. There is to be little or no opportunity either to discuss the Lords amendments properly or to see that those sensible and reasonable revisionary amendments become law. That is why Labour Members are running themselves into a situation which they appear to like and are calling for the total abolition of another place.

I remind Labour Members that we on this side, as well as many Labour Members, would like to see a popularly elected second Chamber. If they wish to see the total abolition of the Lords—which was not their general view in 1949 and is not the view of many today—they are going the right way about it. The situation today shows the plainest intention on the part of the Government of setting at naught the whole purpose of the Parliament Act.

I finish with the words of the Lord Chancellor in 1949 when he said that it was perfectly reasonable that the Government should leave the legislation and seek to reverse the Act later so that there could be a second occasion upon which there would be time carefully to consider public opinion. The Government are flying in the face of public opinion today. If they went to the country on whether they or the Lords were right, they would soon find that their place would be, as it is today, at the bottom of the poll.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)

The Government have based their case on the need for little time to discuss the amendments and the fact that they were mainly the work of irresponsible Conservative peers in another place. It is interesting to find that among the Lords amendments which we shall be asked to discuss in the space of six hours are no fewer than 20 Government amendments. It is significant that we shall have to discuss no fewer than 150 Government amendments which are likely to come back to this House, yet we shall have very little opportunity for discussion.

We have been told of the so-called activities of Conservative peers. But anyone who studied the progress of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill will know of the attitude of a consider- able number of Labour peers in another place, not least Lord Shinwell and his extremely disparaging views in respect of this measure. It is also significant that we are being asked to approve a motion when the Third Reading of the Bill has not yet happened in another place. That brings into question the whole constitutional principle of how we can possibly give proper consideration to the motion, because the House of Lords still has the opportunity on Third Reading to table further amendments under its procedures.

What will have concerned my hon. Friends about the Secretary of State's speech was the quite disgraceful form of blackmail which he introduced—the imputation that anyone who votes against this measure or a timetable motion is wishing to see unemployment in specific areas. That was the politics of the gutter, and I make no apology for saying that. Any Minister who has any sense of responsibility in the Department of Industry knows perfectly well that aids are available to that Department, under the Industry Acts of 1972 and 1975 and the Civil Aviation Act of 1949, which it can use to take action in these areas.

The passing of the Bill may make it more difficult to help those specific cases because it will apply more generally and widely across the whole range of industry, including acquisition of the shares of a number of profitable companies which at present are in no need of assistance. The Bill will diminish the aid which may be given. I would say to those areas where unemployment has been threatened, both by the Secretary of State and by the Minister of State at Question Time, that that argument is totally fallacious. It is the most base argument that could have been adduced.

It is interesting that the Secretary of State gave absolutely no justification, and made no attempt to do so, for the nationalisation of ship-repairing. Any hon. Member who was present at Question Time will have noted the total contradiction in what the Minister of State said. In one of his usual unctuous approches to the nationalist parties, he sought to say that there would be plenty of time for debating the issue of ship-repairing. Hon. Members will have noticed, however, that, in response to further complaints that there was not sufficient time for debating this important issue, the Minister said that there was no time whatever for debating any of these issues but that because they had all been more than fully discussed by the House it was perfectly proper if the whole time were taken up by voting on the amendments which came to us.

The Minister of State is not all that interested in any discussion on the Lords amendments. He could not care less what views might be held in the Lords, whether by Conservative peers, Cross-Bench peers, Liberal peers or Labour peers. As far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned, he wants to roll out what he thinks is his majority and legislate. That is not sufficient for us. We regard this guillotine motion as a travesty of the proper procedures which should follow proper consideration of Lords amendments. I appeal to all hon. Members in this House who care about proper consideration of these matters to vote against the motion.

7.5 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman)

This measure so far, excluding the timetable motion, has been considered for 256 hours. That is a lot of consideration. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) dragged in the tired issue of hybridity as well as the opinion of a person whom he quoted as an eminent Queen's Counsel to verify his views. The eminent Queen's Counsel who has offered his opinion is a former President of the Oxford University Conservative Association and a member of the Executive Committee of Conservative Lawyers. That is the impartiality of the opinion which tells us that the Bill is hybrid.

Of course, the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was increasingly virulent in his final remarks because he knew that the issue which he is trying to deflect us from considering is the issue of jobs in aircraft and shipbuilding. The hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) intervened and spoke about jobs. There would now be 1,000 of his constituents out of work were it not for the money we forced on the British Aircraft Corporation in July in order to underwrite five more BAC111s. The hon.

Gentleman is saying that we can rescue with public money in one way but that we must not rescue with public money in a way which the electorate has endorsed.

We are saying to Opposition Members that there will be no new civil aircraft projects of any major size in this country unless the Bill goes through. I have discussed this with the French, the Germans and the Americans. They are waiting for the Bill to go through so that they can get some decisions. They have asked me "When will this Bill go through?" when I discussed aircraft collaboration with them.

We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen. North (Mr. Hughes) of the dangers awaiting Scottish Aviation if the Bill does not go through. That company is teetering on the edge of destruction, and only this Bill can save it. The jobs at Hawker Siddeley in North Wales are to a large extent dependent on new projects, and new projects depend on this Bill. There are shipyards in England and Scotland which are in danger and which will require an organised approach to make sure that there is any hope of rescuing them.

Mr. Gordon Wilson (Dundee, East)

Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that about 30 per cent. of the workers in Scottish shipbuilding will be made redundant if the Bill goes through? There is a report from the Organisation Committee seeking to close the Scottish shipyards

Mr. Kaufman

The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) raised that issue at Question Time and I told her that those rumours were absolutely without foundation and that we have had no recommendation at all from the Organising Committee. I would tell the hon. Gentleman that, if he votes against the motion on that basis and the Bill falls, he and his hon. Friends will be responsible for tens of thousands of redundancies in the shipbuilding industry in Scotland.

Mr. Heseltine rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. It looks as though the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Kaufman

I advise hon. Gentlemen to take into account that they are voting about jobs. Let them take account of what will happen if they win. They are hoping to be let off the hook by the Government majority. I would tell them here and now that they will not be let off the hook if they vote, because up and down England, Scotland and Wales we will broadcast how hon. Gentlemen voted on this issue of jobs on which the Bill is based.

I therefore call upon my hon. Friends to vote for the motion and to vote to save the jobs of aircraft workers in England, Scotland and Wales, to save the jobs of shipbuilding workers in England and Scotland, and to save the jobs of ship-repair workers in England, Scotland and Wales. We must carry this motion. We must save these jobs.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the Government's own guillotine has fallen on the Minister, he cannot go on speaking, can he?

Mr. Speaker

It has not fallen yet. Has the Minister finished?

Mr. Kaufman

I am perfectly ready to go on talking until the guillotine falls about how the Government wish to save the jobs of shipbuilding and aircraft workers.

Hon. Members

Time is up.

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is at 7.11 that I shall put the Question.

Mr. Kaufman

Hon. Members will have to answer. [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, who talked so much about hybridity, represents an area where there are aircraft workers. He represents the area—

It being One hour after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [20th July], to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them: —

The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 310.

Division No. 376.]	AYES	[7.11 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Concannon, J. D.	Flannery, Martin
Allaun, Frank	Conlan, Bernard	Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Anderson, Donald	Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Archer, Peter	Corbett, Robin	Fool, Rt Hon Michael
Armstrong, Ernest	Cowans, Harry	Ford, Ben
Ashley, Jack	Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Forrester, John
Ashton, Joe	Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)	Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)	Crawshaw, Richard	Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Atkinson, Norman	Cronin, John	Freeson, Reginald
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony	Gacrett, John (Norwich S)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)	Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Cryer, Bob	George, Bruce
Bates, Alt	Cunningham, G. (Islington S)	Gilbert, Dr John
Bean, R. E.	Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)	Ginsburg, David
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	Dalyell, Tarn	Golding, John
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Davidson, Arthur	Gould, Bryan
Bidwell, Sydney	Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Gourlay, Harry
Bishop, E. S.	Davies, Derail (Llanelll)	Graham, Ted
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Grant, George (Morpeth)
Boardman, H.	Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Grant, John (Islington C)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Deakins, Eric	Grocott, Bruce
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur	Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)	de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Hardy, Peter
Bradley, Tom	Dell, Rt Hon Edmund	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Dempsey, James	Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Broughton, Sir Alfred	Doig, Peter	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Dormand, J. D.	Hatton, Frank
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Hayman, Mrs. Helene
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Duffy, A. E. P.	Heffer, Eric S.
Buchan, Norman	Dunn, James A.	Hooley, Frank
Buchanan, Richard	Dunnett, Jack	Horam, John
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)	Eadie, Alex	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Edge, Geoff	Huckfield, Les
Campbell, Ian	Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Canavan, Dennis	Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)	Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Cant, R. B.	Ellis. Tom (Wrexham)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Carmichael, Neil	English, Michael	Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Carter, Ray	Ennals, David	Hunter, Adam
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)	Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Cartwright, John	Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara	Evans, John (Newton)	Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Clemitson, Ivor	Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael	Faulds, Andrew	Janner, Greville
Cohen, Stanley	Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Coleman, Donald	Fitch. Alan (Wigan)	Jeger, Mrs Lena
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen	Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)	Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)	Silverman, Julius
John, Brynmor	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)	Skinner, Dennis
Johnson, James (Hull West)	Molloy, William	Small, William
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)	Moonman, Eric	Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Snape, Peter
Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Spearing, Nigel
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Spriggs, Leslie
Judd, Frank	Moyle, Roland	Stallard, A. W.
Kaufman, Gerald	Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick	Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Kelley, Richard	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King	Stoddart, David
Kerr, Russell	Newens, Stanley	Stott, Roger
Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Noble, Mike	Strang, Gavin
Kinnock, Neil	Oakes, Gordon	Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Lambie, David	Ogden, Eric	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Lamborn, Harry	O'Halloran, Michael	Swain, Thomas
Lamond, James	Orbach, Maurice	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Leadbitter, Ted	Ovenden, John	Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Lee, John	Owen, Rt Hon Dr David	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Padley, Walter	Thome, Stan (Preston South)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold	Palmer, Arthur	Tierney, Sydney
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)	Park, George	Tinn, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Parker, John	Tomlinson, John
Lipton, Marcus	Parry, Robert	Tomney, Frank
Litterick, Tom	Pavitt, Laurie	Torney, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth	Pendry, Turn	Urwin, T. W.
Loyden, Eddle	Perry, Ernest	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Luard, Evan	Phipps, Dr Colin	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Lyon, Alexander (York)	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Walden, Brian (B'ham. L dyw'd)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)	Prescott, John	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson	Price, C. (Lewisham W)	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
McCartney, Hugh	Price, William (Rugby)	Ward, Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Radice, Giles	Watkins, David
McElhone, Frank	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)	Watkinson, John
MacFarquhar, Roderick	Richardson, Miss Jo	Weetch, Ken
McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Weitzman, David
MacKenzie, Gregor	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)	Wellbeloved, James
Mackintosh, John P.	Robertson, John (Paisley)	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Maclennan, Robert	Robinson, Geoffrey	White, James (Pollok)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Roderick, Caerwyn	Whitehead, Phillip
McNamara, Kevin	Rodgers, George (Chorley)	Whitlock, William
Madden, Max	Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Magee, Bryan	Rooker, J. W.	Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)	Roper, John	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Mahon, Simon	Rose, Paul B.	Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)	Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Marks, Kenneth	Rowlands, Ted	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Marquand, David	Ryman, John	Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Sandelson, Neville	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Marshall. Jim (Leicester S)	Sedgemore, Brian	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mason, Rt Hon Roy	Selby, Harry	Woodall, Alec
Maynard, Miss Joan	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)	Woof, Robert
Meacher, Michael	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert	Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Young, David (Bolton E)
Mendelson, John	Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)
Mikardo, Ian	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)	Mr. Joseph Harper and
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Sillars, James	Mr. James Hamilton.
NOES
Adley, Robert	Bradford, Rev Robert	Cope, John
Aitken, Jonathan	Braine, Sir Bernard	Cordle, John H.
Alison, Michael	Brittan, Leon	Cormack, Patrick
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Corrie, John
Arnold, Tom	Brotherton, Michael	Costain, A. P.
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Awdry, Daniel	Bryan, Sir Paul	Crawford, Douglas
Bain, Mrs Margaret	Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Critchley, Julian
Baker, Kenneth	Buck, Antony	Crouch, David
Banks, Robert	Budgen, Nick	Crowder, F. P.
Beith, A. J.	Bulmer, Esmond	Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Bell, Ronald	Burden, F. A.	Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)	Carlisle, Mark	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Benyon, W.	Carson, John	Drayson, Burnaby
Berry, Hon Anthony	Chalker, Mrs Lynda	du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Bitten, John	Channon, Paul	Dunlop, John
Biggs-Davison, John	Churchill, W. S.	Durant, Tony
Blaker, Peter	Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Dykes, Hugh
Body, Richard	Clark, William (Croydon S)	Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Bottomley, Peter	Clegg, Waller	Elliott, Sir William
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Cockcroft, John	Emery, Peter
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)	Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)	Kirk, Sir Peter	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Eyre, Reginald	Kitson, Sir Timothy	Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Knight, Mrs Jill	Ridsdale, Julian
Fairgrieve, Russell	Knox, David	Rifkiind, Malcolm
Farr, John	Lamont, Norman	Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Fell, Anthony	Lane, David	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Finsberg, Geoffrey	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Fisher, Sir Nigel	Latham, Michael (Melton)	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)	Lawrence, Ivan	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Lawson, Nigel	Ross, William (Londonderry)
Fookes, Miss Janet	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Forman, Nigel	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Rosl, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)	Lloyd, Ian	Royle, Sir Anthony
Fox, Marcus	Loveridge, John	Sainsbury, Tim
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)	Luce, Richard	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Freud, Clement	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Scott, Nicholas
Fry, Peter	MacCormick, Iain	Scott-Hopkins, James
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.	McCrindle, Robert	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	McCusker, H.	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylda)	Macfarlane, Nell	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)	MacGregor, John	Shepherd, Colin
Gilmour, sir John (East Fife)	Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)	Shersby, Michael
Glyn, Dr Alan	McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	Silvester, Fred
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph	McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)	Sims, Roger
Goodhart, Philip	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Sinclair, Sir George
Goodhew Victor	Marten Neil	Skeet, T. H. H.
Goodlad, Alastair	Mates Michael	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Gorst, John	Mather, Carol	smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)	Maude, Angus	Speed, Keith
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)	Maulding, Rt Hon Reginald	Spence, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Mawby, Ray	Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Gray, Hamish	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Grieve, Percy	Mayhew, Patrick	Sproat, Iain
Griffiths, Eldon	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Stanbrook, Ivor
Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)	Stanley, John
Grist, Ian	Mills, Peter	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Grylls, Michael	Miscampbell, Norman	Steen, Anthony (Wavetree)
Hall, Sir John	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Moate, Roger	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Molyneaux, James	Stokes, John
Hampson, Dr Keith	Monro, Hector	Stradling Thomas, J.
Hannam, John	Montgomery, Fergus	Tapsell, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss	Moore, John (Croydon C)	Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Hastings, Stephen	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Havers, Sir Michael	Morgan, Geraint	Tebbit Norman
Hawkins, Paul	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral	Temple-Morris, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney	Morris, Michael (Northampton S)	Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Heath, Rt Hon Edward	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Thomas Dafydd (Merioneth)
Henderson, Douglas	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)	Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
		Thompson, George
Heseltine, Michael	Mudd, David	Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Hicks, Robert	Neave, Airey	Townsend, Cyril D.
Higgins, Terence L.	Nelson, Anthony	Trotter, Neville
Hodgson, Robin	Neubert, Michael	Tugendhat, Christopher
Holland, Philip	Newton, Tony	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hooson, Emlyn	Normanton, Tom	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Hordern, Peter	Nott, John	Viggers, Peter
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Onslow, Cranley	Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Howell, David (Guildford)	Oppenheim, Mrs Sally	Wakeham, John
Howell Ralph (North Norfolk)	Osborn, John	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)	Page, John (Harrow West)	Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Hunt, John (Bromley)	Page, Richard (Workington)	Wall, Patrick
Hurd, Douglas	Paisley, Rev Ian	Walters, Dennis
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Pardoe, John	Warren, Kenneth
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)	Pattie, Geoffrey	Watt, Hamish
James, David	Penhaligon, David	Weatherill, Bernard
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd)	Percival, Ian	Wells, John
Jessel, Toby	Peyton, Rt Hon John	Welsh, Andrew
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)	Pink, R. Bonner	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch	Wiggin, Jerry
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Wigley, Dafydd
Jopling, Michael	Prior, Rt Hon James	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Winterton, Nicholas
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Raison, Timothy	Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Rathbone, Tim	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Kershaw, Anthony	Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)	Younger, Hon George
Kilfedder, James	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Kimball, Marcus	Reid, George	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)	Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)	Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That the Order of 20th July 1976 be supplemented as follows—

Lords Amendments

1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

2. For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—

1. (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
2. (b) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
   1. (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended.
   2. (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
   3. (iii) put forthwith, with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, and
   4. (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
3. (c) so soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to such Lords Amendments.

Stage subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

1. (a) put forthwith the Question on any Motion which is made by a Minister of the Crown on any item,
2. (b) In the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment or other Proposal,
3. (c) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) So soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Proposals, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Motion made by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the proposals.

Supplemental

5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the Proceedings' means Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown under Standing Order No. 57(1) (Lords amendments) that the Proceedings shall be considered forthwith.

(3) Paragraph 1 of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Proceedings.

(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the Proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the question [...] such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(5) If the Proceedings are set down on any day as first Government Order of the Day paragraph 4 of the Order of 20th July 1976 (Private Business) shall apply as if that day were an allotted day.

(6) If the Proceedings were interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.