HC Deb 04 July 1978 vol 953 cc381-407

10.17 p.m.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith)

I beg to move, That the Order of 16th November 1977 he supplemented as follows:

Allotted day Lords Amendments Time for conclusion
1st day Nos. 1 to 23 7 p.m.
Nos. 24 to 40 9 p.m.
Nos. 41 to 54 10.30 p.m.
Nos. 55 to 62 midnight
2nd day Nos. 63 to 80 6 p.m.
Nos. 81 to 84 7 p.m.
No. 85 9 p.m.
Nos. 86 to 96 11 p.m.
Nos. 97 to 108 midnight
3rd day Nos. 109 to 129 5 p.m.
No. 130 6.30 p.m.
Nos. 131 to 138 8 p.m.
Nos. 139 to 236 10 p.m.
Nos. 237 to 239 midnight

2. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings for two hours after Ten o'clock.

3. For the purpose of bringing any Proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

  1. (a) Mr. Speaker shall 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 then—
    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; and
    3. (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
  3. (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a

Lords Amendments

1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in three allotted days and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 16th November, each part of those Proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table set out below.

separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

4. 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.

5.—(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 then—

  1. (a) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item in the lords Message; and
  2. (b) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords on 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 Proposal.


6.—(1) In this paragraph 'the Proceedings ' means Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings.

(5) 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 any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(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 he added to the period at the end of which the Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

The purpose of this motion is to provide a timetable for the consideration of amendments to the Scotland Bill which have been made in another place.

The House will ask two questions about the motion. First, is a timetable necessary in this case? Secondly, is the timetable proposed in the motion reasonable? On the first proposition, the House will be acutely familiar with the progress of the Bill. The Scotland Bill has been debated in this House for 97 hours and 55 minutes. It was presented to the House at the very beginning of the Session, on 4th November, and was given a Second Reading on almost the first available day on which it was possible to do so. Indeed, the Bill could not have been started a day earlier, but here we are bumping up against the Summer Recess and we still have to consider the Lords amendments to the Bill.

It is against this background that we must consider a timetable motion at this stage. Hon. Members who take some account of the facts can hardly complain that somehow or other we have been engaged in a rush job in getting the Scotland Bill through Parliament. In addition to the day given to the Bill on Second Reading, the Bill has had 14 days in Committee and three days on Report and Third Reading. At that time the Opposition said, as Oppositions usually do, that the time allowed was not enough, al- though they never made clear what in their opinion would be a reasonable time.

As we went on, it became clear that some parts of the Bill would not be discussed, and it is a matter of regret that quite a number of clauses were not discussed before the Bill went to another place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought that there might be that sort of cry from Conservative Members. It prompts me to ask, whose fault was that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yours."] I am not entirely surprised at that reply either, but I have evidence that the House should consider carefully because it goes to the heart of the dispute.

The Opposition say, and they confirm the view by their sedentary interruptions, that the guillotine was too fierce and that that is why we did not discuss some parts of the Bill. This side of the House said that the Opposition were quite irresponsible in the way that they approached the Bill.

Their Lordships do not have guillotines. It would be unthinkable to have such a procedure in another place, but without a guillotine, and having discussed the Bill fully, their Lordships covered the whole Bill in Committee in 13 days—one day fewer than the House of Commons had to consider the Bill in Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Labour wants to abolish the Lords."] What happened in another place is more of an argument for abolishing the Conservative Opposition than for abolishing the House of Lords. It is no credit to the Conservative Party in this House to be compared unfavourably with Conservatives in another place.

We all know that their Lordships did not approach the Bill with any great presumptions in its favour, but they made a better job of discussing it than did the Conservative Opposition in this House. That simple fact proves beyond any reasonable doubt that a guillotine is necessary in this case.

Mr. David Price (Eastleigh)

The Minister is below his normal form. Will he not explain to the House that their Lordships rightly concentrated on the clauses in the Bill that were not discussed in this House?

Mr. Smith

As usual, the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. They discussed every clause in the Bill.

Mr. Price

They concentrated on those that we had not discussed.

Mr. Smith

One could not fairly say that the Conservative Party concentrates on anything that is considered in this House, and the hon. Gentleman was not in the forefront of reasonable and rational consideration of the Bill, if I recollect correctly some of his speeches.

Mr. Price

They were admirable speeches.

Mr. Smith

That is very much a matter of opinion.

The other question that the House must consider—I am attempting to introduce some rationality into this matter—is whether the proposed guillotine is, in the circumstances, a reasonable one. The House will have noticed that there are a fairly large number of "knives" spaced at regular intervals throughout the days allotted for discussion. We have done this so that the debate will be conducted in various compartments. This is desirable and flows from the fact that parts of the Bill were discussed in another place but not in this House.

The Government took the contributions of their Lordships seriously and accepted a reasonably large number of amendments to the parts of the Bill that were not discussed in this House. However, there were other areas where their Lordships reached conclusions adverse to the Government and carried amendments against the Government. We believe that it is desirable that, as far as possible, we should discuss the amendments carried against the Government on parts of the Bill that were not discussed in this House. Our purpose in producing the slots that the regular knives provide is to create that opportunity. Of course, that could be frustrated if the Opposition indulge in a series of Divisions at the end of a particular period, but I have no reason to suppose that they will do that.

We believe that it would be wise to provide for regular compartments in the debate so that we may consider the matters on which their Lordships have carried amendments adverse to the Government in those parts of the Bill that were not discussed in the House.

We also believe that three days is a reasonable time to allot for the debate. Some of my hon. Friends say that we may be on the generous side. However, given the number of amendments of a controversial character that we have to consider, the number of days likely to he available this Session and the amount of time that we have already spent discussing the Bill, let alone its predecessor, we believe that three days is generous and can be proved to be generous in terms of historical precedents.

We believe that the House should have reasonable time to discuss the amendments from another place. On the other hand, the House must remember its obligation to act as well as to argue. We hope, therefore, that it will carry the motion.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym (Cambridgeshire)

If I may say so, we have heard an uncharacteristically complacent and cantankerous speech from the Minister of State. Try as he may, the right hon. Gentleman cannot justify such a brutal guillotine. Even his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has always said that there has never been anything that could remotely be described as a filibuster when considering the Bill, and no one on either side of the House has behaved in an irresponsible manner in his or her desire to test and probe what is behind the Bill.

We all know that the Minister of State and the Government want the Bill. That is a legitimate aim, but it cannot be right to enter into an arrangement such as is contained in the motion, the effect of which is to silence the House on so many aspects of a major constitutional innovation.

The House cannot fulfil its legislative function and its proper legislative duty in respect of the Bill because it is not being allowed to do so. The Opposition think it is wrong of the Government even to try to impose so severe a constriction upon the debates on the amendments from another place. I think that there is a good deal of sympathy for that view among some Labour Members.

When the Bill left this place after Third Reading, there were 56 clauses and 11 schedules that had gone undebated. That is the official verdict contained in an answer given by the Lord Chancellor in another place. I refer to a list which no doubt right hon. and hon. Members have seen. There were some clauses and schedules that received only scant attention.

The other place has sought at least to put right some of the defects and omissions that occurred as a result of the guillotine in this place. In other words, it has tried to do some of the work that we failed to do. Their Lordships debated matters that we never considered in this place, or never had the opportunity to consider, and made a number of important amendments. They took a constructive approach. The right hon. Gentleman has confirmed that in his remarks this evening. There was no wrecking of any sort. There was no delay.

In our opinion, their Lordships greatly improved the Bill. I am bound to say that that was not very difficult. The Government accepted a number of amendments in another place and regarded them as improvements. More than that, the Government, under strong pressure in another place, moved some amendments to improve the Bill still further. What is the point of criticising my right hon. and hon. Friends for complaining about not having the opportunity to make those amendments ourselves? I am bound to say that, if we had tried to move some of the amendments that were moved and accepted in another place, I am not by any means sure that we would have received as sympathetic a response as did their Lordships.

However that may be, we now have 239 amendments from another place dealing with 25 or 30 main subjects. How will the Government react to that? Will they accept them? Will they accept all of them, or will they reject all of them? How many of them will they reject? We do not know, and I believe that we should have that information. I remind the Leader of the House, who, we note, is not taking part in the debate, that on Thursday last week he was challenged on that issue by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton).

My right hon. and learned Friend said: Will he —that is, the Leader of the House— let the House know…how many amendments the Government will accept so that we may form a proper judgment? That related to the number of days afforded to Lords amendments. The Leader of the House said That is a reasonable point of view…we are approaching the matter in that same reasonable spirit."—[Official Report, 29th June 1978; Vol. 952, c. 1576.] But that is not so, because we do not know which amendments the Government are prepared to accept.

At 10.10 p.m. tonight I went to the Table Office, but no information about the Government's intentions had been lodged there. I do not believe that that is a reasonable approach. It is for the House to judge. The Leader of the House gave that indication. I am sure that most hon. Members believe that we cannot deal adequately and reasonably with the Lords amendments in the time allocated in the motion.

As an example, I invite the House to examine the first group of amendments. We are asked, the day after tomorrow, to consider Lords Amendments Nos. 1 to 23 by 7 p.m. We shall probably embark on discussions at 4 o'clock. The issue raised in the first amendment is proportional voting, which we discussed in Committee. and the House rejected the proposal. The Lords debated the issue at length and by a large majority came down in favour of the proposal. I am certain that there will be considerable added interest in it in the Commons because of the way in which the vote went in another place. I am sure that there will be support for it.

The size of the Assembly is another issue which is in the first group of amendments. We discussed that issue in Committee, and those who considered that the size of the Assembly should be reduced lost the day. But the Government said that they were not wedded to size of the Assembly contained in the Bill. They said that they were open-minded about it and would consider alternative, practical possibilities. Now we have another alternative which should be debated.

In addition, there is Lords Amendment No. 11 about altering the system of voting. The question which will be in hon. Members' minds about that amendment is whether it leaves the initiative on any alteration in the voting system properly with the Commons. We took the view that it should be with the Commons. Subsection 7 of the amendment provides that parliamentary approval should be required. The House will wish to debate whether that is an appropriate adjustment. There are also the issues of the variation of election dates and the cost of elections. All these are major matters.

Is it practical for the Commons to do justice to all those issues in about two and a half hours? I do not believe it is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] It might be too long to take for Government Members, who do not seem to care much about the consequences of what they are enacting. To most hon. Members, however, this matters a great deal. If it is not possible to debate all the issues in the first group, it will be difficult for hon. Members not to vote and record their views in the Lobbies.

I did not like the threat which the Minister of State issued. He suggested that we should not vote on the amendments because that would hold up the passage of the Bill. But, if we are not allowed to debate the issues, we are entitled to record our votes. The House expects us to do that. Voting might be the only way in which we can record our views.

If it is any comfort to the Government, we have no intention of wasting time on voting on consequential or minor amendments—obviously, we shall not do so—but we shall have to record our verdict on the main issues. That is our duty, and it would be most surprising if either the Minister of State or that great champion of the Back Benches, the Lord President, thought that we should do anything else. That would not be a satisfactory legislative process.

However extensive our good will, however generous or charitable we may be—the Government Front Bench might not think that we are, but, being dispassionate about it, one might conclude that we are—we do not see how this many-bladed device, this guillotine of many knives, to use the Minister of State's words—this souped-up guillotine—can enable this House to do its job properly. That is why we hope that the motion will not be passed. That is not a particularly revolutionary suggestion.

I invite the House to contemplate the consequences of not passing the motion. They are not startling or extraordinary. They will be that the Government will come back with another guillotine motion with a much more generous allocation of time. Is not that what is required and what a lot of hon. Members would like? [AN. HON. MEMBER: "That would take us into August."] What is wrong with August? I want to draw the attention of hon. Members to paragraph 4 of the motion, which reads: 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. I am aware that there are precedents for that provision, but we object to it on this Bill because we are dealing with fundamental issues affecting the constitution, although we do not have the time to discuss them.

We do not know what will be the reaction of the House of Lords to decisions by this House on its amendments. What will the other place decide if we fail to discuss matters which it has amended but which we have never discussed and may not discuss? Would it not be justified in saying that it thinks that the Commons should debate these issues? The motion says that, no matter what the House of Lords says, whenever another message comes from the othe place, however extensive, it will have to be disposed of within three hours.

No one knows how the story of the Bill will end, except that it will not work, at any rate not to the advantage of the people of Scotland. To say that three hours is enough in all circumstances for further messages is unreasonable, unnecessary and wrong.

My right hon. and hon. Friends have not tabled an amendment to the motion because it seems to us impossible to ask the House to fulfil its responsibilities to the country and the electorate on the basis of three days only, even with a two-hour extension on each occasion. Labour Members, or, at least, some of them, may feel the same. I see no political damage for them in requiring that the Lords amendments are considered properly and carefully by this House. I ask the Government to withdraw the motion, or, failing that, I ask the House to vote it down.

Several Hon. Members


Mr. Speaker

Order. Before I call anyone, may I remind the House that this debate of one hour must finish at 11.17? I hope that we can have a series of very short speeches, so that the House may hear all representative points of view.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness)

As the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said, the motion hardly comes as a great surprise to the House. Because of the nature of this legislation, which arouses opposition which almost goes beyond persuasion, it is clear that without a guillotine there is no prospect of the legislation being passed before the end of this Session. Therefore, if we do not pass this guillotine motion—or timetable motion, which is a more reasonable way of describing it—

Mr. Pym

More wishy-washy.

Mr. Johnston

"More reasonable", I said—we shall have no prospect of the Bill's passing.

The outcome of the Second Reading debate, allied to the known feeling in Scotland, which has been demonstrated many times, justifies the timetabling of the end of this legislation. I do not accept the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire's view that the motion is designed to silence the House. On the contrary, the Minister made a reasonable point when he compared the conduct in the other place with that in this House. I am not saying that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire himself made extended speeches, but it is a fact, as I know because I was here for most of the debates, that there was a remarkable concentration on the lesser issues during periods when more major issues were due for discussion but consequently were never reached.

Mr. Iain Sproat (Aberdeen, South)

Such as?

Mr. Johnston

That did not happen in the other place.

Mr. Sproat

As someone who was present at the debates as frequently as the hon. Gentleman, or more frequently, may I ask whether he can give one example of a serious and important subject which was deliberately not debated because the Conservative Opposition were concentrating on other matters?

Mr. Johnston

No, I do not think that I can, off the cuff—[Interruption.] On the contrary, the fact that one cannot instantaneously produce an example is no proof that examples do not exist. The Minister has said that practically all matters were dealt with in the Lords. That means that they were not dealt with here and that we did not space out our time as effectively as they did. It can only mean that.

Mr. Leon Brittan (Cleveland and Whitby)

That is not what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Johnston

That is exactly what I said, and I have repeated it in those words.

Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Johnston

Mr. Speaker has said that the debate ends at 11.17, but, if the hon. Gentleman insists, I will give way.

Mr. Raison

The hon. Gentleman is saying that in the House of Lords, where there was no guillotine, there was a better and more rational allocation of time for discussion than in the House of Commons, where there was a guillotine. Why, therefore, does he think that we ought to have a guillotine here?

Mr. Johnston

I confess that I do not quite understand that intervention. This guillotine is more specifically spaced out than the previous timetable motion with the object of ensuring that certain matters not previously debated will be debated. That is an argument in favour of it.

It is well known, and this applies to both sides of the House, that Oppositions are ferociously opposed to guillotines, as if they were entirely novel procedures and a total derogation of democracy. We all know that that is far from being the truth. If the past behaviour of the Opposition Front Bench on such matters had been different, we would have looked at what it had to say in a different light. That is not the case. We are dealing with a set of propositions which are not new. We are dealing with a Bill which the majority of people in Scotland wish to see on the statute book and with a set of proposals which have been discussed in Scotland for the best part of a decade. We are dealing not with a set of innovative proposals but with matters which have been gone over many times. That justifies the introduction of the guillotine.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

After standing at the Bar of the other place for some 80 hours, I feel obliged to say to hon Members that I observed men and women going about their task of examining the Bill on both sides of the argument in a serious, businesslike way and leaning over backwards to be constructive. If anyone wants to criticise the House of Lords, political values is not the kind of charge that will stick, at any rate not on this occasion.

If there is ground for criticism, it is, frankly, that certain peers were sadly conspicious by their absence. I feel bound to ask where, for example, was Lord Glenamara, who had so much to say in previous years on this matter? Where was Lord Norman Crowther Hunt, who did not even come down from Oxford to defend his creation? What happened in the Lords bore an uncanny resemblance to what has occurred in this House over the past two years. The Lords started off with a great deal of good will for the Bill—

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)


Mr. Dalyell

Yes, they did. However. as the days went by, the more they learned about it, the less they liked it. It was the same process of self-education as we have seen here—

Mr. Speaker

Order. May I say to both sides of the House that the tendency to shout from a sedentary position is increasing? It is unfair. It spoils debate. It is unparliamentary. This debate will finish at 11.17 p.m.

Mr. William Ross

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I thought that it was out of order to attack Members of another place by name. If some of us shouted at that, it was out of our respect for what we recognise as the rules of order of this House.

Mr. Speaker

I heard no attack on a Member of another place. All I heard was a question: the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked where a noble Lord was. That was not an attack.

Mr. Dalyell

The fact is that these 200-plus amendments represent a host of unsolved, and probably insoluble, problem, in trying to set up a subordinate Parliament in part, though only part, of a unitary State.

[...]r brevity's sake, may we take the third day—8 p.m. till 10 p.m.? Here we have schedule 10. The debate starts with museums, and I suspect that we may not get further than museums. We have local authorities, pollution and vessels, inland waterways, civil aviation regulations and payment of agricultural grants—a whole lot of subjects. Then we come—I give this as an example—to betting and gaming, a subject that went wholly undiscussed in this House. Yet this is what the Gaming Board said in evidence to the Royal Commission in 1976—and I checked this afternoon that this is the board's considered opinion. This evidence, of May 1976, stands at present: The Board see no substantial arguments specific to gambling in favour of devolution … and the Board would see no substantial advantage, but considerable danger, in departing from the concept of a single Gaming Board for Great Britain. That is just an example of a subject that has been undiscussed: "considerable danger", the Board says. That was the considered opinion of Sir Stanley Raymond, who was chairman of the Board for nine years, and later of the present Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who was the permanent under-secretary, at the Home Office responsible for these matters.

Whatever conclusion one comes to, when these people with knowledge say that there is considerable danger involved in the devolution of betting and gaming—it is extremely unsatisfactory—I do not know whether the Government will accept the relevant amendment—that it is unlikely that the House will even discuss the matter.

I turn lastly to another timing that all of us must be a bit concerned about. On the second day, two hours, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.—and the time may well be an hour and a half, if that, because of voting—are to be devoted to the question of tax. In the House of Lords peer after peer, not least Lord Home, among many others, expressed grave doubts about setting up an Assembly without money-raising powers. The problems are well known to this House, and need not be rehearsed by me, of having an Assembly without financial, taxing powers.

In the other place Lord Kaldor said that he had come specially from his abode in order to make it clear to their Lordships that it was most important to him that a Scottish Assembly should have tax-raising powers. He ended his peroration by saying that he had no concrete proposals. It is understandable that non-economists, including Lord Home, cannot come up with a concrete form of taxation. But when I hear the most inventive, the most ingenious tax economist of our generation, a man who has positively spewed taxes over the face of the planet, saying in the House of Lords that of course he has no concrete proposals, may not one be forgiven for suspecting that there are no possible taxes that are acceptable?

I shall do everything and anything to obstruct an Assembly without tax-raising powers, because if it does not have them there is the certainty of endless conflict, which has been alluded to time and again in our debates over the past two years. If the Assembly is to have tax-raising powers, we should not have a truncated debate on a guillotine motion.

In the referendum, every man and woman in Scotland should know precisely what taxes he and she will have to pay, over and above what he and she pay at present, and roughly what will be the effect on his and her pocket. This kind of thing should be made known before and not after the Bill becomes an Act. Therefore, I say to my hon. Friends that until we are very much clearer about, for example, this question of tax and what proposals the Government may have and what the specific form of the tax will be, we should deny this motion.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. George Reid (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

I have a sad sense of déja vù about this debate: we have been here before. The remarks of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) remind me that he has an almost ecological obsession with devolution—with recycling waste material and using the same old rubbish time and again.

As far as the Scottish National Party is concerned, enough is enough. It is time to redeem the devolution pledges that all parties in this House freely gave to the people of Scotland in October 1974. Since I am speaking in headline form, I give four brief reasons why the SNP is supporting the motion.

First, the time for talk is over and it is time now to deliver the goods; secondly, delivering the goods—the Assembly—is possible only through the guillotine; thirdly, the Bill is the most, in our view, that can be wrung out of this Parliament; lastly, we believe the Bill does not go far enough to meet the aspirations of the Scots people, but it is, as we have said time and again, a stepping stone to further self-government in the future. We are open and honest about that.

The time for talk is over. The debate in Scotland has gone on for well over 100 years, through the Home Rule movement in the 1880s, through the Home Rule Bills in the 1920s, through Labour commitments right up to 1945, through the "powerhouse" promised at the last election, through commitments from the devolution Minister at the Scottish Office promising that the Assembly would be set up by October 1976—all these super-stamped in Scotland with the imprimatur "Labour doesn't make promises that it cannot keep." The time to keep that promise to the Scots people is tonight.

In this House, too, we have waded through Kilbrandon, three White Papers, motions, debate after debate, the whole business of the moribund Scotland and Wales Bill, with 96 hours spent on it and only clause 3 reached, and in this Session the time spent on the Scotland Bill itself.

I turn to some of the objections raised by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). Some of the troubles the Tories complain of they brought on their own heads. If they had exercised, as the Minister of State said, a little self-discipline during the Scotland and Wales Bill and again during the Scotland Bill, as in the Lords they could have got much further forward in revisioning the respective measures which have been placed before this House.

The Tories' current proposal is for a constitutional convention, whereby all Members of this House—nationalists, socialists, Liberals, dissentient Tories, hardline Tories—would get together in a convention, and somehow by magic a common view would emerge. That, after all the years of debate, is clearly nonsense. In putting forward that proposal, the Tories are simply begging for further time.

In any case, members of the Conservative Front Bench are no innocents at using the guillotine in constitutional matters. When the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire was the Tory Governments Chief Whip, he guillotined the European Communities Bill, pushing it through absolutely unchanged. It was the same with the Industrial Relations Bill. The Tories in Government are no strangers to the use of the guillotine.

As far as the SNP is concerned, the Bill is not satisfactory, but we take some comfort from the fact that the Government are in a "Catch 22" situation. If the guillotine goes forward and the Assembly is set up, that may represent a small electoral setback for us in the short term, but we can build on the new legislature. If the guillotine does not go through, watch the Scottish people go nationalist in a big way. The Government have been in that "Catch 22" situation ever since they made their commitment, freely, in the October 1974 General Election.

We have, of course, objections to the lack of financial powers in the Bill. We say simply that one cannot graft a bit of federalism on to a unitary State. We therefore say that the Assembly must be an evolutionary body, that we have not reached the end of the road when it is set up. There will be no imperial settlement of Scotland's future. The Assembly will continue to grow, and where that growing process stops will be decided not in this House but by the people of Scotland themselves.

The Bill as it comes back to this House from the Lords is something of a curate's egg. There are one or two good things that the Lords have done that we find acceptable. There is, for example, the option of the Assembly putting forward its own taxation proposals. There are the electoral reform arrangements advanced by the Lords, and the possibility of the Assembly devising its own scheme for elections.

But, at the same time, there has been much nihilism and much emasculation of the Bill in the other place. I am thinking of the grudging efforts to take out aerodromes, bus routes, forestry, doctors' pay, and so on. The stately domes of England did their work there. We confidently hope that the Government Front Bench will put these back into the Bill during consideration of the amendments.

It is right to mention, finally, two matters which the SNP Bench may well take to avizandum. It will not be difficult to clear away about 90 per cent. of the Lords amendments, but there may well be two subjects of continuing concern which could ping-pong between the two Houses. The first is electoral reform itself. I say that we shall take that to avizandum, but we certainly would look for a good turnout in support of electoral reform, from this Bench, from the Liberal Bench, from some Labour Members and from some Conservatives.

Secondly, and quite rightly, we are concerned about the West Lothian question. We have every sympathy with English Members who may find that their country could in future have its destiny determined by Scots votes. We in the SNP practise a self-denying ordinance. We do not vote upon English measures. That is one way out of the problem. But we have to give notice now that if that is not acceptable the Ferrers amendment may well receive substantial support from the SNP.

In conclusion, it is clear that I am not claiming that all Scots support independence at this point. Probably the figures are about one in four or one in five. But we think that support is solid. We think that it will grow. What is clear tonight, is that 70 per cent. of the Scots people, in poll after poll have stated that they want some change from the status quo, and that the status quo is not an option. The Scottish TUC, the Scottish Council of the Labour Party, the Church, the Liberal Party and the SNP are all watching this House tonight. If the guillotine fails, I believe that there will be a harsh northern reaction to that decision.

Scotland is not a region. That is what is still misunderstood on the Labour Benches. Scotland is a nation in her own right.

Several Hon. Members


Mr. Speaker

Order. I shall call next the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), but the winding-up speeches are due to begin at six minutes past 11, which means that there are only five minutes left for a speech from either side of the House.

11.1 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle (Blackburn)

Anyone who has been a Member of the House of Commons for as long as I have is bored with debates on the guillotine. Every Government in turn are responsible for it. When they introduce a guillotine, the Opposition jump up to attack them with spurious sanctity.

Of course it is absolutely right that the House of Commons should be given adequate opportunities to examine all major Bills. I understand the genuineness of the emotion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). but I remind him of the Parkinson's law of debates—that debates expand to fill the time available. I have seen this in decade after decade while I have been in the House of Commons.

I would have considered it a "phoney" argument that is being carried on tonight had it not been for the speech of major hypocrisy from the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). I remember previous debates which his Government guillotined. When I heard the right hon. Member say "It cannot be right to silence this House on so many aspects of this major constitutional Bill", I remembered a major constitutional debate in which I took a leading part from the Opposition Front Bench. That was on the Industrial Relations Bill introduced by the Conservative Government, a Bill which radically altered the legal status of trade unions in this country. Every clause was pregnant with peril for our industrial democracy.

I know that you are getting worried about the time, Mr. Speaker, and I shall be very brief. I cannot develop my argument but, by heavens, I shall leave the House with a few statistics for comparison.

We are told by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire how disgusting it is that 56 clauses in the Bill will not have been debated. Let me remind him of the Industrial Relations Bill, which caused such havoc to the industrial relations of this country, a Bill which even the Conservative Party has abandoned. Out of 150 clauses in that Bill, 111 remained undiscussed in the Committee stage in this House.

What time were we given on Report? Oh, yes, we had five days on Report, and three-quarters of that time was spent on 15 Government new clauses. By the time the Report stage had finished, only two Opposition amendments had been discussed.

What about the progress of the Bill in the Lords? There was a very different reception there.

Several hon. Members


Mrs. Castle

I will not be interrupted, because I have been asked by Mr. Speaker to sit down in one minute. I will not give way.

Oh, yes, there were 341 amendments carried in their Lordships' House. I cannot say that they exactly struck at the heart of the Bill. Most of them were trivial. But what happened on the timetable motion on the Lords amendments to the Industrial Relations Bill? The Conservative Government allowed five days. In the first four days, 72 amendments were discussed out of 341, and the rest were rushed through in the last few hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) remembers because he fought side by side with me.

Do not let us not have any more of this Conservative hypocrisy in complaining about the guillotine, because it was they who railroaded through this House the most fundamental constitutional reform on the industrial side by means of a derisory timetable. I shall not attack guillotines in principle because the business of Government must get through, but to suggest that this Government have treated the House of Commons with disrespect in the allocation of time on this Bill compared with the allocation of time that we have had on previous major measures by a Conservative Government is just another piece of infantile hypocrisy.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

If there is any infantile hypocrisy, it is on the part of the Leader of the House, who has not spoken tonight, and who should be ashamed of himself for not doing so.

What have been the arguments advanced? The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) mentioned the Industrial Relations Bill. There is a world of difference between a measure which can be amended by a future Parliament, on which five days were allowed for Lords amendments, and a measure dealing with a major constitutional change which is to be put to a referendum. I remember the present Leader of the House, in a wonderful speech in 1972, pointing out how different a constitutional Bill was, and that it was quite shameful and wrong, therefore, for the Government to move the guillotine motion which they were then moving.

Then we had the argument from the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), in one of his usual agreeable and wandering speeches, in which he suggested that we should have the guillotine tonight because we have had enough talking. When we asked him for one example of Opposition filibustering, he could not provide one. There is a world if difference between what he put forward and the facts of the situation.

Next, the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) put forward the argument that people want constitutional change, therefore we should have it quickly and get on with the referendum. We shall be doing a great disservice to the people of Scotland if we shove before them a Bill which is full of conflict and which will undoubtedly serve no other purposes except helping the nationalists.

A brief study of the Bill shows that, even with the maximum good will, and even with curtailed speeches, there is not a ghost of a chance of the House of Commons giving even superficial attention to the many important issues which the Lords have suggested we should consider.

We must consider four very brief and important points. First, the Bill has not been properly discussed in the House of Commons, and the House of Lords had a big job to do. Three-quarters of the Bill had not been discussed at all in the House of Commons, and that is why we need time for Lords amendments.

Secondly, many important issues were not resolved in the House of Commons, the most important one being the famous West Lothian question. We shoved the Bill through to the House of Lords without any suggestion about how this might be resolved.

Thirdly, as the Minister well knows, there are many important Scottish special interests which were not discussed of even considered, such as forestry, waterways, museums and airports.

If we are considering the amount of time available, I ask the House to look at two examples—first, the two hours allowed for 100 separate amendments on the third day, and, secondly, for the advantage of the Liberals, the Orkney and Shetland amendment, for which one hour has been left under the timetable motion all of which may be taken up by important votes on a previous amendment. It is quite shameful, and an insult to Orkney and Shetland, that once again we shall perhaps allow only five minutes to decide about their special problems.

If we pass this motion tonight, the inevitable consequence will be that we shall be putting to the people of Scotland in a referendum a major constitutional Bill which Parliament itself will not have discussed properly, and parts of which will not have been discussed at all. Surely we as a House of Commons have a duty to ensure that any proposals in relation to changes in our constitution which we put to the people should have been carefully and cautiously considered. If we follow the Government's course tonight, all we shall succeed in doing will be to put before the Scottish voters a dog's breakfast of a Bill, with unresolved conflicts, ludicrous and unworkable demarcation, and with the seeds of the breakup of Britain. We must not make this mistake.

Therefore, we must reject the Government's motion and allow time for major constitutional issues, which will be with us for centuries to come, at least to be discussed where issues should be discussed.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. John Smith

One always looks to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) to liven up even dull debates. He did his best. If one were to have predicted two adjectives which the hon. Gentleman definitely would have used—and which he uses in every speech —they would have been "shameful" and "insulting". [HON. MEMBERS: "And disgraceful".] And "disgraceful"; I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. As we know, the hon. Gentleman is not a master of understatement, and I am trying to be very generous to him. I hope Liberal Members will understand that, because only this week an anti-Taylor group was established within the Scottish Conservative Party. That shows that there is hope for even that dying body. However, the hon. Gentleman did his best to convince the House that there was some merit in opposing the guillotine.

But the truth is the truth as explained by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), that of all the parties to object to a timetable motion, the Conservative Party is the least able, and especially the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). He was the Chief Whip at the time of the European Communities Bill, on which we had no time at all to consider Lords amendments because there were no Lords amendments. Why? Because there were no Commons amendments. The House of Commons was not allowed to amend anything. Following its cue, the House of Lords did not make any amendments either. The only reason why the right hon. Gentleman's record does not include a timetable motion on Lords amendments to the European Communities Bill is that he took great care to make sure there were none to bother him.

The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) was quite right in saying that the question before the House is whether this Bill will pass in this Session of Parliament. It started right at the beginning and we are now fairly near the end of this Session. As the House well knows, we must get a Bill through all its stages within the one Session. We have already debated the Bill for 97 hours 55 minutes. Most of that time has been taken up by critics of the Bill. The restraint of the supporters of the Bill allowed the Opposition to raise all the points which they wanted to raise. If, as the hon. Member for Cathcart says, large areas of the Bill were not discussed—it is not quite as bad as he suggested, although there is a case —the fault lies not on the Labour side but on the Conservative side of the House, because the Conservatives in the House of Lords did a better job of allocating time than did the Conservatives in this place.

It is unfortunate that the Conservatives in the Lords behaved in a way which is embarrassing to their friends in this House, but it was an object lesson in the way in which the Conservative Party obstructed the Bill. I do not say that the Conservative Front Bench did so. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire and the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) did not make long, filibustering speeches, but they know perfectly well what went on in the House of Commons, and so does every other hon. Member present.

This is an entirely reasonable motion. It allows reasonable time to debate a fairly large number of amendments, but many are technical in character and many have already been accepted by the Government in another place.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith

The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but we are near the end of the debate.

Tonight we must take a decision to do two things. First, there ought to be a reasonable time for debate, and we are allowing three full days. Not only that, but they are days with extended periods at the end of them. We know from precedents that this is not ungenerous. If we look at the reality of the situation and the number of days available between now and the end of the Session, we see that it is not unreasonable to pass this motion.

Mr. Pym

The whole burden of my argument was that in relation to the issues on this Bill the time is unreasonably short. Will the Minister tell us the scale of the Lords amendments that the Government will accept? Will they accept most of them, half of them, or only a few of them?

Mr. Smith

The right hon. Member knows perfectly well, because he has been following the House of Lords debates closely, that a large number of the amendments on the Notice Paper have been moved or accepted by the Government in another place. The Government will make their position clear as the debates continue on the Lords amendments. I find it preposterous that the right hon. Member should raise points of this sort when he made quite sure that there never were any Lords amendments to the most important Bill in which he was involved.

We know perfectly well that no guillotine motion could be put forward that would meet with the approval of the Conservatives. The right hon. Member said that he objects to a guillotine motion on this Bill—

Mr. Pym

I never said that.

Mr. Smith

We know perfectly well that those who put their hands to guillotines when in Government becomes tremendous opponents of them when in Opposition.

Mr. Britian


Mr. Smith

No, I shall not give way.

I shall not make too much of a point of that because both sides of the House indulge in it. But there is a certain ritual hypocrisy about a great deal of the opposition to the timetable motion—this one and others that the House has discussed. The fact is that the House will be given a very fair opportunity to discuss these amendments. We hope—

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER proceeded pursuant to Order [16th November], to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them.

Question put accordingly:—

The House proceeded to a Division

Mr. Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge)

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At 10 p.m. the House passed the motion, That the Motion relating to Scotland Bill (Allocation of Time) may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour. Will you note that Standing Order No. 44 provides: If a motion be made by a Minister of the Crown providing for the allocation of time to

Division No. 244] AYES [11.18 p.m.
Allaun, Frank Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Bean, R. E.
Anderson, Donald Atkinson, Norman (H'gey Tott'ham) Belth, A. J.
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Bain, Mrs Margaret Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Armstrong, Ernest Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ashley, Jack Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Bidwell, Sydney
Ashton, Joe Bates, All Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

any proceedings on a bill Mr. Speaker shall, not more than three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on such a motion, proceed to put any question necessary to dispose of those proceedings.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Question on this motion is well covered by the Standing Orders. On 16th November last the House agreed to an order concerning the allocation of time to the Scotland Bill. Para 10 of that order provides that proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement the provisions of the order shall, if not previously concluded, he brought to a conclusion one hour after they had been commenced. Para. 9 of the order provides that at the conclusion of the proceedings I shall proceed to put the Question on the motion.

The Business of the House motion on the Order Paper today enables debate on the motion for a supplemental allocation of time order to be proceeded with at any time after ten o'clock to the extent that it has not already been disposed of by that hour. Therefore, it is quite in order for the timetable motion to be put now.

Mr. Rhodes James

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the resolution of the House on the order cannot in any way supersede Standing Order No. 44, which refers specifically to a three-hour debate on any proceedings on allocation of time orders.

Mr. Speaker

I think the hon. Gentleman is mixing it up with the original motion. That was applicable to the original motion.

I must rule that we had similar circumstances to this on 20th July 1976 in relation to three allocation of time motions debated on that day. The same sort of business motion was tabled, but it allowed us only to debate after ten o'clock to make up the hour. I am very sorry, but it is in order. Indeed, I am glad that it is in order.

The House having divided: Ayes 292, Noes 274.

Blenkinsop, Arthur Gould, Bryan Noble, Mike
Boardman, H. Gourlay, Harry Oakes Gordon
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Graham, Ted Ogden, Eric
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Grant, George (Morpeth) O'Halloran, Michael
Bottomley Rt Hon Arthur Grant, John (Islington C) Orbach, Maurice
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Grocott, Bruce Ovenden, John
Bradley, Tom Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Bray, Dr Jeremy Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Padley, Walter
Broughton, Sir Alfred Hart, Rt Hon Judith Palmer, Arthur
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Pardoe, John
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Hayman, Mrs Helene Park, George
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) Healey, Rt Hon Denis Parker, John
Buchan, Norman Heffer, Eric S. Parry, Robert
Buchanan, Richard Henderson, Douglas Pavitt, Laurie
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Hooley, Frank Pendry, Tom
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) Horam, John Penhaligon, David
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H) Perry, Ernest
Campbell, lan Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Canavan, Dennis Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Price, William (Rugby)
Cant, R. B. Huckfield, Les Radice, Giles
Carmichael, Neil Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Carter, Ray Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Reid, George
Carter-Jones, Lewis Hughes, Roy (Newport) Richardson, Miss Jo
Cartwright, John Hunter, Adam Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Clemitson, Ivor Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Cohen, Stanley Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Robinson, Geoffrey
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen Janner, Greville Roderick, Caerwyn
Concannon, Rt Hon John Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Conlan, Bernard Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) John, Brynmor Rooker, J. W.
Corbett, Robin Johnson, James (Hull West) Roper, John
Cowans, Harry Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Rose, Paul B.
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill) Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Crawford, Douglas Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rowlands, Ted
Crawshaw, Richard Judd, Frank Ryman, John
Cronin, John Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Sandelson, Neville
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) Kelley, Richard Sedgemore, Brian
Cryer, Bob Kerr, Russell Selby, Harry
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) Kilfedder, James Sever, John
Davidson, Arthur Kilroy-Silk, Robert Shaw, Arnold (llford South)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Lambie, David Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil Lamborn, Harry Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lamond, James Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Sillars, James
Deakins, Eric Lever, Rt Hon Harold Silverman, Julius
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Skinner, Dennis
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund Litterick, Tom Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)
Dempsey, James Loyden, Eddie Snape, Peter
Dewar, Donald Luard, Evan Spriggs, Leslie
Doig, Peter Lyon, Alexander (York) Stallard, A. W.
Dormend.J D. Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Steel, Rt Hon David
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Duffy, A. E. P. McCartney, Hugh Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Dunn, James A. MacCormick, lain Stoddart, David
Dunnett, Jack McDonald, Dr Oonagh Stott, Roger
Eadie, Alex McElhone, Frank Strang, Gavin
Edge, Geoff MacFarquhar, Roderick Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) McGuire, Michael (Ince) Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
English, Michael MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Swain, Thomas
Maclennan, Robert Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Evans, loan (Aberdare) Madden, Max Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Evans, John (Newton) Magee, Bryan Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray) Mahon, Simon Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Fluids Andrew Mallalieu, J. P. W. Thompson, George
Fernyhough Rt Hon E. Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole) Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W) Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Flannery, Martin Maynard, Miss Joan Tierney, Sydney
Fetcher, L. R. (llkeston) Meacher, Michael Tilley, John
Fetcher, Ted (Darlington) Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Tinn, James
Foot. St Hon Michael Mikardo, lan Tomlinson, John
Ford, Ben Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Torney, Tom
Forrester, John Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Tuck, Raphael
Fowler. Gerald (The Wrekin) Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby) Urwin, T. W.
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) Molloy, William Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Freud, Clement Morris, Rt Hon Charles R. Ward, Michael
Garrett, John (Norwich S) Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Watkins, David
George, Bruce Moyle, Rt. Hon. Roland Watkinson, John
Gilbert. Rt Hon Dr John Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Watt, Hamish
Ginsburg, David Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Weetch, Ken
Golding, John Newens, Stanley Weitzman, David
Wellbeloved, James Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch) Woof, Robert
Welsh, Andrew Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford) Wrigglesworth, lan
White, Frank R. (Bury) Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington) Young, David (Bolton E)
White, James (Pollok) Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Whitehead, Phillip Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Whitlock, William Wilson, William (Coventry SE) Mr. Donald Coleman and
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick Wise, Mrs Audrey Mr. James Hamilton.
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W) Woodall, Alec
Abse, Leo Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) Lloyd, lan
Adley, Robert Fookes, Miss Janet Loveridge, John
Aitken, Jonathan Forman, Nigel Luce, Richard
Aiison, Michael Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) McAdden, Sir Stephen
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Fox, Marcus McCrindle, Robert
Arnold, Tom Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) McCusker, H.
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Fry, Peter Macfarlane, Neil
Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East) Galbraith. Hon T. G. D. MacGregor, John
Awdry, Daniel Gardiner, George (Reigate) MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Baker, Kenneth Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde) Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Banks, Robert Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Bell, Ronald Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir lan (Chesham) McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Bendall, Vivian Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Madel, David
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) Glyn, Dr Alan Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Benyon, W. Godber, Rt Hon Joseph Mates, Michael
Berry, Hon Anthony Goodhart, Philip Mather, Carol
Bitten, John Goodhew, Victor Maude, Angus
Biggs-Davison, John Goodlad, Alastair Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Blaker, Peter Gorst, John Mawby, Ray
Body, Richard Gow, lan (Eastbourne) Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Boscawen, Hon Robert Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Mayhew, Patrick
Bottomley, Peter Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Meyer, Sir Anthony
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) Gray, Hamish Miller Hal (Bromsgrove)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Griffiths, Eldon Mills, Peter
Bradford, Rev Robert Grist, lan Miscampbell, Norman
Braine, Sir Bernard Grylls, Michael Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Brittan, Leon Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Moate, Roger
Brocklebank-Fowler, C. Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell) Molyneaux, James
Brooke, Hon Peter Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Monro, Hector
Brotherton, Michael Hampson, Dr Keith Montgomery, Fergus
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hannam, John Moore, John (Croydon C)
Bryan, Sir Paul Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Buck, Antony Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss Morgan, Geraint
Budgen, Nick Haselhurst, Alan Morgan-Giles, Rear Admiral
Bulmer, Esmond Hastings, Stephen Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Burden, F. A. Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Hawkins, Paul Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Carlisle, Mark Hayhoe, Barney Mudd, David
Carson, John Heath, Rt Hon Edward Neave, Airey
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Heseltine, Michael Nelson, Anthony
Churchill, W. S. Hicks, Robert Neubert, Michael
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Higgins, Terence L. Newton, Tony
Clark, William (Croydon S) Hodgson, Robin Nott, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Holland, Philip Onslow, Cranley
Cockcroft, John Hordern, Peter Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Osborn, John
Cope, John Howell, David (Guildford) Page, John (Harrow West)
Cormack, Patrick Hunt, David (Wirral) Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Costain, A. P. Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Page, Richard (Workington)
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E) Hurd, Douglas Paisley, Rev lan
Crouch, David Hutchison, Michael Clark Parkinson, Cecil
Crowder, F. P. Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) Pattie, Geoffrey
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) James, David Percival, lan
Dalyell, Tam Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd) Peyton, Rt Hon John
Dean, Paul (N Somerset) Jessel, Toby Phipps, Dr Colin
Dodsworth, Geoffrey Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) Pink, R. Bonner
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Jones, Arthur (Daventry) Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Drayson, Burnaby Jopling, Michael Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Price, David (Eastleigh)
Dunlop, John Kaberry, Sir Donald Prior, Rt Hon James
Durant, Tony Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Dykes, Hugh Kimball, Marcus Raison, Timothy
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John King, Evelyn (South Dorset) Rathbone, Tim
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) King, Tom (Bridgwater) Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Elliott, Sir William Kitson, Sir Timothy Rees-Davies, W. R.
Emery, Peter Knight, Mrs Jill Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Lamont, Norman Rhodes James, R.
Eyre. Reginald Langford-Holt, Sir John Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Fairbairn, Nicholas Latham, Michael (Melton) Ridsdale, Julian
Fairgrieve Russell Lawrence, Ivan Rifkind, Malcolm
Farr, John Lawson Nigel Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Fell, Anthony Lee, John Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Finsberg, Geoffrey Lester, Jim (Beeston) Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Fisher, Sir Nigel Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Ross, William (Londonderry)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Spicer, Michael (S Worcester) Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire) Sproat, lain Viggers, Peter
Royle, Sir Anthony Stainton, Keith Wakeham, John
Sainsbury, Tim Stanbrook, Ivor Walder, David (Clitheroe)
St. John-Stevas, Norman Stanley, John Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Scott, Nicholas Steen, Anthony (Wavertree) Wall, Patrick
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) Stewart, lan (Hitchin) Weatherill, Bernard
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) Stokes, John Wells, John
Skelton, William (Streatham) Stradling Thomas, J. Whitney, Raymond
Shepherd, Colin Tapsell, Peter Wiggin, Jerry
Shersby, Michael Taylor, R. (Croydon NW) Winterton, Nicholas
Silvester, Fred Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart) Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Sims, Roger Tebbit, Norman Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Sinclair, Sir George Temple-Morris, Peter Younger, Hon George
Skeet, T. H. H. Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Smith, Dudley (Warwick) Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield) Townsend, Cyril D. Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
Speed, Keith Trotter, Neville Mr. Michael Roberts.
Spence, John van Straubenzee, W. R.

Question accordingly agreed to.


That the Order of 16th November 1977 be supplemented as follows:—
Lords Amendments

1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in three allotted days and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 16th November, each part of those Proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table set out below.

Allotted day Proceedings Lords Amendments Time for conclusion.
1st day Nos. 1 to 23 7 p.m.
Nos. 24 to 40 9 p.m.
Nos. 41 to 54 10.30 p.m.
Nos. 55 to 62 midnight
2nd day Nos. 63 to 80 6 p.m.
Nos. 81 to 84 7 p.m.
No. 85 9 p.m.
Nos. 86 to 96 11 p.m.
Nos. 97 to 108 midnight
3rd day Nos. 109 to 129 5 p.m.
No. 130 6.30 p.m.
Nos. 131 to 138 8 p.m.
Nos. 139 to 236 10 p.m.
Nos. 237 to 239 midnight
2. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings for two hours after Ten o'clock.
3. For the purpose of bringing any Proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—
(a) Mr Speaker shall 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: (b) Mr Speaker shall then—
(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; (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; and (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.