Transport Bill (Allocation of Time)

HC Deb 09 March 1981 vol 1000 cc630-78

4.8 pm

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym)

I beg to move, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 31 March 1981.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after midnight on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

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

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to vary the order in which the Bill is, by virtue of the Resolution of the Standing Committee of 22 January, to be considered by the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may vary that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

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

Dilatory motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

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

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

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of three hours.

Private Business

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

Conclusion of proceedings

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

1. (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
2. (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
3. (c) the Question on any Amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that Amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;
4. (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
• and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

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

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

1. (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
2. (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill, which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

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

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

1. (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
632
2. (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

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

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

Interpretation

13. In this Order— 'allotted day' means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day; 'the Bill' means the Transport Bill; 'Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee' means a resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Committee; 'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

The House regards timetable motions, at the very least, with circumspection, and rightly so. Tabling such a motion is certainly not something that Ministers undertake lightly, and the present case is no exception. We always recognised that the Transport Bill would have a difficult time in the House because of the issues with which it deals and the controversiality of those issues. Nevertheless, we had hoped to secure its passage without such a motion.

Right at the start of this Session the Leader of the Opposition clearly outlined in the debate on the Queen's Speech the Opposition's attitude to the Bill. He said: We shall fight it all the way."—[Official Report, 20 November 1980; Vol. 994, c. 18.]

That is an entirely legitimate approach which no one complains of or criticises. It is an approach which has, in the event, been effectively implemented by Opposition Members who are serving on Standing Committee E. Their assiduousness and tactics, about which I make no complaint, produced the need for today's motion. I do not believe that Opposition Members can be really surprised that the Government have felt it necessary to ask the House to agree to a timetable motion in order to make more rapid progress.

By the end of last Tuesday's sitting, when the Government took a decision on the guillotine, the Committee had completed 17 sittings in about 55 hours, and had dealt with amendments to only five pages of the Bill. It had over 70 pages still to go. At that rate of progress, the Bill would still be in Committee well into 1982. I recognise that last Thursday, when hon. Members knew that they would have to face this debate today, they allowed the Committee to deal with three pages and 10 amendments in seven hours of debate. That emphasises the lack of progress. Even at that rate, it would be Easter before the Committee would be able to start to debate the road safety provisions.

The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary have done everything that they can to be helpful to the Opposition and to co-operate with them. Explanatory notes on clauses have been issued to assist hon. Members in their understanding of the provisions. They have dealt as fully as possible with the points that the Opposition have properly raised, even when, strictly speaking, the queries have not been entirely relevant to the Bill. They have tried to help in every way possible.

The Government have accepted three Opposition amendments outright and two others in principle with the assurance that the issues will be covered by Government amendments on Report. We have gone out of our way to deal fully and reasonably with all the arguments.

Mr. Harry Cowans (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central)

The Leader of the House makes a valid point: the Government have given way on three amendments. However, will he bear in mind that they gave way to one amendment after four hours debate? They could have accepted the amendment at the outset. Notes about previous Transport Bills have been given to Committee Members. However, notes on this Bill go only as far as part II and relevant questions have had to be asked which would not have had to be asked if sufficient notes had been issued.

Mr. Pym

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have acknowledged that the Secretary of State and the Undersecretary have been as helpful as they can to the Committee.

The Opposition oppose strongly parts I and II because they are contrary to the Labour Party's philosophy. Strong opposition and forceful debate are inevitable and appropriate. However, we had hoped that the debates would be reasonable and not unduly prolonged. The Committee will also wish to debate carefully the other important changes to transport legislation which the Bill contains, the question of road safety in particular.

I have examined the Official Reports of the Committee proceedings and I find that the Committee took 30 hours to debate part I, which contains only four, albeit important, clauses. That seems to be a long time. Clause 1 took 19½ hours. Part II is also taking a long time. The debate on the first group of amendments to part II, which deals with the name of the statutory corporation which is to be the successor to the British Transport Docks Board, took four and a half hours. I know that names are important and that the name was changed by amendment, but that was an excessive time. During that debate Government Front and Back-Bench Members spoke for 53 minutes out of a total of more than four hours.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield, East)

Government Back Benchers extended the debate on the name of the successor company because their amendments were under discussion.

Mr. Pym

That is not quite right. Seven amendments were tabled by Government Back Benchers about the change of name. They were debated with Opposition amendments. The Under-Secretary and my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) spoke for 53 minutes between them. I do not think that that was unreasonable.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Pym

Perhaps hon. Members will have a chance to make their own cases later. I am not a member of the Committee. I am trying to put the Government's case for a timetable motion.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Ealing, Southall)

Did the right hon. Gentleman notice in his weekend reading of the Committee reports that on one occasion, after a lengthy argument to leave a pier or port out of the statutory control provisions, the Secretary of State did not come into the Committee and give way until we had made a verbal trip around the Lake District? That was wasting the Committee's time.

Mr. Pym

I am sure that the Secretary of State will deal with that. I am not trying to exonerate the Government or put them in a white sheet. I am saying that the Committee is taking too long.

The next group of amendments concerned the holding company and its subsidiary statutory corporation—the successor to the British Transport Docks Board. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) introduced the group of amendments in a speech that lasted two hours and 40 minutes. Obviously there was much more that he could have said, but he generously made way for another member of the Opposition Front Bench, who spoke for over an hour. I am sure that it was a brilliant speech. I make no comment about the quality of the speech. Later in the same debate a third Opposition Front Bench spokesman made a speech. In all, the amendments were debated for eight hours. The House might feel that that was bordering on the excessive.

Mr. Cowans

The right hon. Gentleman is making a case for not wasting time. A Government Back Bencher moved the amendment to change the name of the holding company. The Opposition amendment did not change the name. At any time the Secretary of State or the Undersecretary could have intervened and accepted that a change of name was necessary. In four hours they failed to do that.

Mr. Pym

I do not think that it happened in quite that way. A Government Back Bencher tabled an amendment which was eventually accepted. However, my point is that Opposition Members, as they were entitled to do, took up five times as much time as the Government Front Bench and Back-Bench Members together. The hon. Gentleman's argument is that the debate on the group of amendments should have been concluded more quickly. That did not happen, and I do not think that it was the fault of my right hon. Friend or the Conservative Members of the Committee.

Clause 5, in its entirety, was subject to 20½ hours of debate. I know that it is an important clause, which obviously attracted a substantial debate, but that was the equivalent of eight normal Committee sittings of two and a half hours each. I think that the House will think that rather excessive.

In the Government's view, the time has come for us to ensure that the Bill makes reasonable progress. With regret, therefore, we must bring this motion before the House. I wish briefly to outline the motion. Paragraph 1 directs the Committee to report the Bill to the House by 31 March. Under paragraph 3, it will be for the Business Sub-Committee to determine the number of Committee sittings between now and then. The Government hope that the present four sittings a week will be retained until 31 March, when the motion will lead us to complete the Committee stage after the morning sitting. The motion will enable another 13 sittings to take place before Report to deal with the remaining 27 clauses and 10 schedules. Paragraph 3 also leaves it to the Business Sub-Committee to determine the compartments in which the Bill should be divided, and when the knives should fall.

Paragraph 2(1) of the motion allots one day to the proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading, coming to a conclusion at one hour after midnight. The Business Sub-Committee will be able to decide how the time on Report is to be apportioned.

Under paragraph 2(2) the Business Sub-Committee will, as usual, have four sitting days after the Bill is reported from Committee in which to make its recommendations. I am sure that in doing so it will wish to take full account of the desire of many hon. Members to debate constructively the important road safety measures in part IV of the Bill. That is for the Business Sub-Committee to decide. A disproportionate amount of time on that part of the Bill would be in line with the views expressed by Members on both sides of the House. However, it is a matter for the Business Sub-Committee. The motion also contains the usual provisions of a timetable motion to enable the Business Sub-Committee to determine the rate of progress in Committee, in line with the overall timetable.

Timetable motions are not popular, even if sometimes unavoidable. We believe that the motion is essential if Parliament is to consider all parts of the Bill and secure its passage. We introduced the Bill before Christmas, which gave ample time for it to be considered fully and properly in Committee. Of course, I recognise the Opposition's wish to express and to demonstrate the strength of their feelings against the Bill and against a denationalisation measure, but, in doing so in the way that they have, they have put other important parts of the Bill at some risk and have left the Government with no alternative but to bring forward the motion. It is not something that the Government wanted, but we felt that we had no other choice.

In the time that remains before Report, on the basis of the motion, we believe that the Committee will be able to do justice to the Bill. I ask the House to approve the motion.

4.23 pm

Mr. John Silkin (Deptford)

The Leader of the House was his usual courteous self. As usual, he made the best of a bad job. Nevertheless, it is a bad job. At best, the motion proves what most of us already know, namely, the total ineptitude of the Government in their handling not only of the economy but of the business of the House. At worst, it demonstrates a certain cynicism by the Government towards the Opposition's rights and privileges. I am a charitable person: I think that it is a mixture of both.

We oppose the motion because it is a violation of an inalienable parliamentary right. Three rights need to be considered in any debate on any legislation. First—and this I freely acknowledge—the Government have the right to protect the remainder of their legislative programme. Strangely enough, the Leader of the House did not mention that, but it does exist. He did not mention it because, frankly, this is rather a thin year for legislation. The Gracious Speech was greeted with some enthusiasm by Conservative Members for precisely that reason. They felt that there would be more time for long recesses and easy days than there had been in the previous Session. That, at least, is not under threat. By omitting to mention it, the Leader of the House showed that he agrees with me.

The second right—to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—is that of the Government to have sufficient time for the passage of the Bill in question. That does not mean that there is a guarantee that a Bill will be passed. That would be wrong. However, they should be guaranteed the time in which such a Bill might be passed.

The third right, which has been an inalienable right as long as we have been a parliamentary democracy, is that of the Opposition to have sufficient time for proper discussion of a Bill. That right is challenged by the motion because of the Government's failures in relation to the other two rights. The Government have a positive duty to ensure that there is proper time for discussion.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath)

If the right hon. Gentleman is making a serious point, why did not the Opposition make out their own timetable—albeit a longer one than that of the Government? Had they done so, all parts of the Bill could have been debated fully.

Hon. Members

We did.

Mr. Silkin

The hon. Gentleman has led with his chin. I shall give him a moment or two to recuperate before I come to exactly that point.

I turn to the Bill itself—

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke)

We could have agreed if the right hon. Gentleman had offered that.

Mr. Silkin

The hon. and learned Gentleman will have the opportunity to speak later if the Secretary of State allows him to reply.

The Secretary of State said on Second Reading that there were two major themes of the Bill: first, the introduction of private capital into State-owned industries, and, secondly, the reform of motoring laws and provisions for road safety. Undoubtedly, my eye is inexpert. Like the Leader of the House, I am not a member of the Committee. Like him, I blanched when I saw the technicalities from reading the reports of the Committee proceedings.

To my inexpert eye, there appeared to be not two but at least five major themes. However, the Secretary of State said that there were two major themes. Both of them are highly controversial, but there is a difference between them. The Leader of the House properly and fairly admits that the first theme is controversial between the parties because two philosophies confront each other. It is right that it should be fully debated on that basis. But the second theme is not controversial in the House; there is no ideological difference about it. On the contrary, such a theme is controversial on an individual basis. That is shown by the wealth of amendments from Conservative Members relating to that part of the Bill. Hundreds of amendments are still to be dealt with, but not on a party basis.

The Leader of the House admitted that ideological differences were bound to take some considerable time. However, inter-party differences on a matter such as road traffic usually take rather less time. If the Secretary of State feels that the second major theme is in danger—this was a large part of what the Leader of the House said in his opening remarks—why was it included in the Bill in the first place? Where did the pressure come from to do that? Did it come from the civil servants? Frankly, I doubt it. I happen to know something about the Department of Transport as it was when it was even larger than it is now. Its civil servants would have applied a contrary pressure. They would have said to the Secretary of State"Do not be so silly. They are two different themes, which should be the subjects of separate Bills."

Is the right hon. Gentleman being stubborn? No, I do not think that that is being totally fair to the right hon. Gentleman. Has pressure been put on him by others who are concerned in the management of the House? Of course, the right hon. Gentleman was not the Leader of the House at the time. Was pressure put on others to put everything together in a general compendium Bill? The passage of legislation is made very much easier if that is done. One has only to introduce a one-clause Bill at the beginning of a Parliament that states that anything that the Government want they can have. In that way Bills receive their Royal Assent and the Government are enabled to take administrative action. Surely that is not the basis of parliamentary democracy and never has been.

It is interesting to note that the Labour Government in which I was the Patronage Secretary—I had many dealings with the present Leader of the House when he was in his previous occupation—were faced with exactly the same dilemma. They wished to deal with two major things in their transport Bill. What did they do? They introduced two separate Bills. The first became the Road Safety Act 1967. That measure was completed in nine sittings. It contained 29 clauses as against the 10 clauses in the present Bill that relate to road safety. If the right hon. Gentleman had been allowed to proceed in that way, there would have remained for consideration a controversial Bill containing only 25 clauses.

We are bitterly opposed to the Government's proposals for the railway subsidiaries and the docks board. The right hon. Gentleman recognises that. We have always been against the sale of public assets and we have never made any secret of that. We have the right to let the country know that we are opposed to it and the right to tell the country why the policy is so wrong.

We have been guided by four main principles. First, we are against the sale of British Rail assets. We have always been against that. Secondly, we have to ensure that the industries are maintained in operation in accordance with their statutory duties. Thirdly—this is by no means unimportant—we have to secure the rights of consultation and the rights of pensions for the employees. So far there has been no debate on the pensions issue. Fourthly, we have to reduce the opportunities for single private company domination in the various transport authorities.

Those are important matters and it is the right and the duty of an Opposition to deal with them. We are opposed to the dissolution of the National Ports Council. It is not only my right hon. and hon. Friends who take that view. We contend that there should be a full examination of the proposed charges for licensing cabs and cab drivers. That constitutes a theme of its own.

What has the Leader of the House managed to tell us? He says that the progress of the Bill is too slow. Eight clauses had been disposed of by Thursday and over 108 decisions had been made. I admit that that figure includes"clause stand part" decisions, but the remaining decisions were on amendments, and 55 amendments came from the Government and Conservative Members. I admit that some of them appeared to be trivial.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler)

Is the right hon Gentleman saying that they all appeared to be trivial?

Mr. Silkin

Not all, but some appeared to be trivial. Some amendments were rather important. As the right hon. Gentleman should know, and as the Leader of the House well knows, it is possible to speak on seemingly unimportant amendments for longer than two hours and 40 minutes, which was the time taken to discuss the rights of workers, an issue which is not unimportant.

Mr. Pym

I think that I am right in saying that all the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State derived from the fact that when the Bill was published he was a Minister and subsequently he became a Secretary of State. I think that they all related to that change, and they were debated together.

Mr. Silkin

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has it quite right. In principle I do not disagree with him. We have both been in the House rather a long time. Alas, the grey hair begins to show. I am speaking for myself. The passage of time affects us in different ways. However, any Opposition can speak on any amendment, however trivial, for a long time. I was careful to point out—

Mr. Iain Mills (Meriden) rose—

Mr. Silkin

I shall finish my sentence. I was careful to point out that the 55 amendments that originated from the Government Benches came from Conservative Back Benchers as well as from the Government.

Mr. Mills

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the amendments on Associated British Ports were consequential? The issue was debated at extraordinary length. There was a full exploration in which both Labour and Conservative Members participated. The amendments of my hon. friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and my own amendments were totally consequential, yet there was a vote on each occasion.

Mr. Silkin

Consequential amendments feature significantly in any series of amendments. The hon. Gentleman has given the game away. He says that the amendments were fully debated. They were debated fully, yes, but not over-fully. That is precisely my argument.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham) rose—

Mr. Silkin

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), but after his intervention I shall not give way again for at least another five minutes.

Mr. Moate

I shall make the most of this opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman must not dodge the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). The issue was fully, or excessively, debated and then we had consequential amendments. What is the purpose of the Opposition voting against consequential amendment after consequential amendment on an issue such as a change of name if the object is not blatantly to waste time or to filibuster? If that is not the intention, what is the Opposition's purpose in voting against consequential amendments?

Mr. Silkin

The hon. Gentleman has been in this place for quite a long time. I can remember him adopting a slightly different attitude when the Local Government Bill 1972 was before the House and when another Conservative Administration were in office. The hon. Gentleman's question deserves an answer. My memory is that there was not much, if any, debate on the consequential amendments.

Mr. Moate indicated dissent.

Mr. Silk in

Was there discussion on each of the consequential amendments?

Mr. Moate

No.

Mr. Silkin

Obviously, the Opposition had to signify what they felt about the amendments. Amendments of the type that we are discussing are often voted upon without debate in the interests of saving time. There is nothing unusual in that.

Mr. Cowansrose—

Mr. Moate

The right hon. Gentleman said that he would not give way for at least five minutes.

Mr. Cowans

What is five minutes? If some estimates of five minutes are accepted, our proceedings in Committee would now be completed. Is my right hon. Friend aware that we sat at 10.30 am on Tuesday 24 February and it was not until 5 pm that the Undersecretary of State informed us that he would accept the amendment. That is not hearsay. Do not look at the crystal ball, read the book. If that is not time-wasting, I do not know what is.

Mr. Silkin

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am glad that I gave way to him. However, I think that he must be a bit more charitable. It was not so much time-wasting. I have often noticed that Conservative Members take about seven hours longer than Labour Members to get to the point.

Mr. Kenneth Clarkerose—

Mr. Silkin

I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman in another three minutes.

The Leader of the House says that no progress has been made. Is he not aware that it is only a fortnight since the Opposition offered 14 clauses by 5 March? The Government have lost that. They have, incidentally, also lost a valuable day in the House by the motion. Why did not the Government accept the offer? There is plenty of legislative time to put the road safety aspect into another Bill, as I have tried to demonstrate in giving the history. The Road Safety Act 1967, under a Labour Government, did not take long to go through the House. It was only three or four weeks in Committee.

Had the right hon. Gentleman been sensible, and if our offer had been accepted, only 11 clauses would now remain to be dealt with and the Bill would come out of Committee in good time to go to another place. However, such a course may assume rather more sense and intelligence on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues than has been shown during the passage of the Bill.

I give way now to the Under-Secretary.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

The right hon. Gentleman has now passed the point. His claim would be legitimate if time had not been wasted and we were really short of time. He is getting the flavour of our debates in Committee from the interruptions to which he is so courteously giving way.

In the debate mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans), he got to his feet halfway through. That debate was entirely taken up by the Opposition until I was able to get in at 5 o'clock. The hon. Gentleman was asked by the Opposition Whip, when he resumed his speech in the afternoon proceedings, to make sure that the debate did not run out of time. The hon. Gentleman began in the middle of a debate about which he is now complaining with a joke about the time that was going by. He immediately in the afternoon gave way to an interruption from the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), who began with the words: We should not like to run out of time on the vitally important question ol the name,"—[Official Report, Standing Committee E,24 February 1981; c. 465.] I merely intervene to supplement the hon. Gentleman's information about the Committee and to underline our feeling. At that stage of the Committee, about which indignation is now being expressed, we were, unfortunately, in the middle of blatant time-wasting. The Opposition's indignation is misplaced.

Mr. Silkin

All that the hon. and learned Gentleman had to do was to rise to say that the Government accepted the amendment. He could have done that hours before. The amendment was accepted.

Mr. Fowler

The Government amendment.

Mr. Silkin

That is right. I give way again to the Minister.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

The right hon. Gentleman is being too courteous. The amendment was dealt with by two of my hon. Friends who intervened in the debate for only 25 minutes. The remainder of the debate was taken up by Opposition Members resisting any change of name We had to listen to hours and hours of debate before, in the end, we had the opportunity to resist. There was no way that I could concede to the proposal.

Mr. Silkin

If the hon. Gentleman wants it that way, well and good. However, I gather that both sides of the Committee spoke on the matter.

I repeat that had the offer been accepted the whole history would have been different. There would have been no necessity for the motion. Indeed, there is no necessity for it now. What I am saying destroys the case of the Leader of the House from beginning to end. He is talking about a finishing date of 31 March. Had the road traffic provisions not been in the Bill, I have not the slightest doubt that we should have been well within the time scale.

Having been in Government and Opposition, I know that there are always charges of fillibustering. Why did my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) speak for so long? He was dealing with a matter that was vitally important to him—perhaps more important to the Opposition than many other aspects of the Bill. He felt strongly about the matter. Sometimes speeches go on for rather a long time. However, there is all the difference in the world between the Government's ability to obtain information and that of the Opposition. Speaking from a well-prepared brief is easy enough and the Minister can be succinct. It is much more difficult to make a case as a member of the Opposition.

The right hon. Gentleman and I have worked for many years on a simple principle. Governments cease to be Governments and Oppositions become Governments. The way that this Government are going, it will not be long before that change takes place. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would do well to start learning the lessons now. They will be in Opposition soon.

There has always been an argument in favour of timetabling all Bills, and I suspect that privately I carry the Leader of the House with me on this. However, if all Bills were timetabled, the first question any sensible Business Committee would ask right at the beginning would be"Why on earth put all this into one Bill? All the controversial, ideological and doctrinaire stuff is in the frst part, and then the Bill goes on to deal with non-party controversial matters. For Heaven's sake, split the Bill." As the Government did not do that, they must take responsibility. That, among other reasons, is why we oppose the Bill.

4.47 pm

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)

I have a degree of sympathy for the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), not because he did not have the privilege to serve on the Committee—in that I congratulate him on his good fortune—but because he has to oppose a motion from the Dispatch Box, relying for his argument on facts given to him by his right hon. and hon. Friends. He has to argue against something that most reasonable people by now would regard as inevitable. As one of the most experienced parliamentarians in the House, he knows that when people speak for as long as his right hon. and hon. Friends have been speaking they do so with one objective—to waste time. The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) is also an able parliamentarian—

Mr. Gary Waller (Brighouse and Spenborough)

Steady on.

Mr. Moate

—compared with his right hon. and hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman can, if necessary, compress arguments into 10 or 20 minutes, as we usually have to in the House. However, on several occasions in Committee he spoke for an hour. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) spoke on one occasion for two hours and 40 minutes, on another for two and a half hours and on yet another for an hour and 20 minutes. Time after time the Committee was treated to excessively long speeches. The only motivation for those speeches was to waste time.

Last Thursday the immediate response of the Leader of the Opposition to the motion was to point out that there were 30 Government amendments. I have not read the Committee Hansard in detail—it is hard enough to sit on the Committee, let alone do that—but each one, I believe, related to changes of name either from"Minister" to"Secretary of State" or from"British Transport Docks Board" to"Associated British Ports". The name of the organisation is important, but arguments on it can be briefly put. It took four hours to debate one such amendment. The Opposition did not raise many objections in principle to the name"Associated British Ports". However, having had the discussion, every time that a consequential amendment came up they decided to vote against it. The right hon. Gentleman knows that such procedure has only one motivation—to waste time.

At that time there was no agreement through the usual channels, and we knew that there were no fewer than 170 consequential amendments tabled to change the name. Were we really to be faced with the prospect of 170 time-wasting votes on such a simple and trivial matter? I cannot believe that the general public watching the debate would regard that as an intelligent way to conduct our proceedings.

I referred then to the absence of trust or confidence between the two sides. That is the key point. I am not saying that, individually, the usual channels were not communicating. But once time-wasting and lengthy debates were taking place on that scale it clearly became harder and harder to reach any kind of agreement that would carry conviction with the people who really mattered in the Committee.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry, North-West)

I had not wished to become involved in this way so early in the debate. I must put it to the hon. Gentleman, however, that there was indeed an agreement and that we put forward a most reasonable proposition. It was—that the Government could have the whole of part II, the largest part of the Bill, within one day—two sittings—of their own proposition to us. It was when that broke down, and on the decision of the Government that the late night sittings began. It had been in order to avoid that that we gave an irrevocable undertaking to finish part II only one day later than the Government's own timetable.

Mr. Moate

I am just a humble Back Bencher in all this. Like my hon. Friends, I sit largely silent while Opposition Front Bench spokesmen talk and talk. That is the sad role of a Government Back Bencher. One is aware that negotiations are going on to try to get orderly conduct of the Committee proceedings, but it becomes very difficult to know the truth of what one hears. There are charges and countercharges. It has been said that it is like relying upon two eye witnesses' accounts of the same motor car accident. It makes one worry about the truth of history. The same is true when one tries to look back to see what went wrong. Let us not count clauses or schedules. Let us consider the number of pages. After 65 hours of debate we had reached page 5 of a 77-page Bill.

Mr. Robinson

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to impute any lack of truth on either side. If he checks the record that is kept by both sides, or if he reads the exchanges, he will see that the truth was quite evident, adequately recorded on both sides and essentially as I have given it. But he still has to answer this question. If it was not the Government's intention from the beginning to guillotine the Bill, why did they decide, when we were within one day of their own timetable, that late night sittings, were necessary and that they could not accept our offer?

Mr. Moate

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, one usually goes into fairly late afternoon sittings and then into late night sittings, not because one knows that a guillotine is inevitable, but in order to make progress and to avoid a guillotine.

Mr. Robinson

Why did the Government not accept our offer?

Mr. Moate

I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. I am simply saying that there was no progress.

Mr. Robinson

That is precisely what Opposition members of the Committee could not understand. An offer was made to deliver part [I of the Bill within one day of the Government's own timetable, but that offer was rejected.

Mr. Moate

Once trust breaks down and the usual channels fail to work, this is what occurs. It seems to me, never having been in that positon, that individual or tactical bargaining is a separate matter from an overall strategic agreement on when to conclude the Committee stage. If the Government accept a deal on any particular part, they do not know whether they will carry the Bill through all its stages in a reasonable period. At that point one needed to know whether there was to be an early conclusion of the Committee stage as a whole.

I am very sad indeed that we have reached this position. I do not like guillotine motions of any kind. The right hon. Member for Deptford said that some people believed that there should always be timetabling of Bills of this kind. I am totally hostile to that view. I believe that timetabling of the kind that we are now considering always militates against Back Benchers and plays into the hands of Governments. No matter how reasonable or sensible it may seem to allocate X hours to one aspect and Y hours to another, one knows full well that, once there is a time limit, it is easy for opponents to kill off individual Back Bench amendments and for Governments to drive out Back Bench amendments. Once there is a timetable motion, a large number of the opportunities that many of us seek to use on Report will not be open to us.

It is a tragedy that the Conservative side has come to a guillotine motion. I believe that it is due to the ineptitude of the Opposition. One person is responsible, namely, the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Fumess, because he leads for the Opposition on this subject. He could have prevented some of the excessively long speeches from Opposition Members. He could have demanded that there be reasonable timetabling for the many important debates. I do not believe that he did that. I believe that he listened too much to his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

We decide things in Committee.

Mr. Moate

The hon. Gentleman says that the Opposition decide things in Committee. Perhaps that is a mistake. The right hon. Gentleman should have asserted his authority in leading for the Opposition in the Committee.

Mr. Albert Booth (Barrow-in-Furness)

The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) is clearly under a misapprehension. It was my hon. Friends who urged on me—not I who urged on them—that an offer should be made to those leading for the Government to finish clause 14 by last Thursday night. That offer was duly conveyed. The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that, while I have led for the Opposition on these matters, neither he nor any Minister dealing with transport legislation has had any reason whatever to believe that we would not deliver on any undertaking that we gave with regard to a timetable. The offer was made on a perfectly genuine basis. It was rejected on a basis that might be regarded as far less credible. The hon. Gentleman should ackowledge that he was wrong, first, in suggesting that I had to persuade my hon. Friends to make the offer, which is totally untrue, and secondly, in suggesting that any breakdown of trust arose from Opposition action.

Mr. Moate

I am talking about the overall handling of the Committee proceedings, not about how one responds in a particular situation to a particular problem, such as how to deal with part II of the Bill. That is not what we are talking about now. We are talking about whether there was sufficient trust and whether the right hon. Gentleman carried sufficient authority to say that the Opposition would deliver the whole Bill in a reasonable time, giving reasonable time to debate what I personally consider to be the most important parts of the Bill. We have not even reached them yet. The right hon. Member for Deptford said that we feel strongly about the abolition of the National Ports Council. So we do. But after 75 hours of debate we have not even been allowed to reach that, due to the filibustering and time-wasting tactics of the Opposition.

The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness referred to the importance of the road safety clauses. These are desperately important matters. We should have reached those clauses by now. But we have not been allowed to reach the vital road safety aspects. Many of us suspected that the Opposition's objective was to talk for so long on the Bill that we should never reach them at all—[Hon. Members:"No."]—I think that the Opposition's motives were confused. One of their beliefs is that one can waste so much Government time as to undermine the legislative programme altogether.

Mr. Cowans rose—

Mr. Roger Stott (Westhoughton)

From the Opposition Dispatch Box I assure the hon. Gentleman that at no stage was it the Opposition's intention to prolong the debates in Committee in order to invalidate the road safety provisions. We believe that they are extremely important and that the House should have the opportunity to debate them. I entirely rebut the hon. Gentleman's remarks. At no stage were we trying to"rubbish" those proposals.

Mr. Moate

There are two possible motives for filibustering on a Bill, as I believe the Opposition have done. One is to force a guillotine. That is sometimes an Opposition tactic because they feel that that gives them a moral advantage in some circumstances. The other is to destroy a Bill. I do not say that they wish to destroy the road safety measures, but one major objective of filibustering is for the Opposition to waste so much Government time as to endanger legislation.

Incidentally, by endangering the Bill the Opposition would thereby have jeopardised these important road safety measures. I know that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) feels strongly about the road safety measures. Filibustering is an Opposition tactic which is often used to destroy legislation altogether. The Opposition could destroy the Bill in that way, and in so doing would destroy the road safety measures that it contains.

Mr. Cowans

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, particularly for his display of Back-Bench solidarity by giving way to the the Front Bench first. Conservative Members seem to be less informed than Labour Members. There was a form of agreement with regard to clause 1 and the Labour side of the Committee delivered that agreement. At no time did the Government offer an overall timetable. They offered one in part, and naturally the Opposition responded.

Mr. Moate

I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be able to answer those points of detail. However, I believe the hon. Gentleman to be totally and completely wrong. The Government stated at a fairly early stage what they regarded to be a sensible end date. Had we been able to agree on an end date, we would then have been able to devote the time that I want to devote to the desperately important matter of road safety.

We have spent 20 hours on clause 5. I understand the ideological importance of that clause to Labour Members. Nevertheless, I think that 20 hours is excessive. We have not yet reached other important matters, such as the question of the breathalyser and its vital importance to the nation. We have not yet reached the important question of provisional licences and the size of motor cycles, yet that is of desperate importance to millions of people. We have not yet been allowed to discuss the whole question of the points system to replace the present system of endorsements on licences, yet that is a matter of crucial importance. There are many other road safety measures that we have not yet discussed.

No doubt many hon. Members would want to discuss the question of random testing. That matter is no less controversial than the ones that we have already debated. Many of us would like to talk about seat belts and other restraints—a matter of immense controversy.

The Opposition have indulged in ill-thought-out time-wasting tactics without considering the consequences. They have carried on regardless, believing that it is their job to waste Government time. They have jeopardised the sensible and constructive debate that we could have had on these vitally important road safety measures.

I believe this guillotine to be necessary because of the way the Committee stage has been handled by the Opposition. The Bill provides an important opportunity to get some road safety measures on the statute book, and that has been jeopardised particularly by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness.

5.3 pm

Mr. David Ennals (Norwich, North)

The points that have just been made by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) prove absolutely and without question the validity of the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) that road safety matters should have been included in a different Bill. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman should now start addressing his own Front Bench. Regardless of the amount of time, or lack of it, that will exist in Committee for dealing with road safety issues, this House will have only one day, with an extension of three hours, to discuss the whole Bill, including road safety issues. That is absolutely inadequate.

I believe that we should have one day to discuss road safety. The people of this country would expect Parliament to give one day to consider the broad problems of road safety. There are many points in part IV which I would support, but there are some great weaknesses which need to be debated at length both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I therefore wish to concentrate on the issues contained in part IV, such as road safety and seat belts. I believe that they are the most important provisions in the Bill. I expect that it is now too late to take part IV out of the Bill, but I hope that in reply the Minister will say that he will consider giving more time to discuss these issues.

In 1978, 348,000 people were killed or injured as a result of road accidents, at a cost of £1,293 million. That was apart from the mental and physical distress caused to families and the occupancy of a large number of hospital beds which were urgently needed for other types of orthopaedic cases. Of course, there are vital parts of the Bill which I would support, but there are two defects which we shall need to debate at length.

I have no doubt that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to strengthen the drinking and driving provisions in the Bill. In a recent leader the magazine"Pulse" stated: Without stricter enforcement of the drink driving laws we are allowing people who are acknowledged not to be in a fit state to drive a car to maim and to kill others. Random breath tests are not necessary. Dr. John Havard the BMA secretary who is also an internationally acclaimed expert on drink driving legislation suggests that selective breath testing be carried out at those places and times where drivers who have been drinking are likely to be found. He calculates that for every £10 million spent on enforcing the law £100 million would be saved". that is only one view, which could be supported by others. I wish to add a few words about the need for legislation on seat belts. The arguments for wearing seat belts are absolutely overwhelming. They are accepted by the Minister's own Transort and Road Research Laboratory, which has put countless facts at his disposal. However, he has not included this matter in the Bill. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has said that

no other single practical piece of legislation could achieve such dramatic savings in lives and serious injuries". It has estimated that legislation would increase the wearing rate from about one-third of drivers and front seat occupants to nearly 90 per cent. and would save between 600 and 700 lives and more that 11,000 serious injuries a year.

Clearly, no amount of voluntary pleading will be enough. This issue should be embodied in law. No country has managed to achieve a high rate of seat belt wearing until the issue has become part of the law. In fact, 23 other countries, including all the EEC countries, with the exception of ourselves and one other, have already done so. Almost every industrialised country that has a large number of vehicles on the road and which cares about road safety has recognised that without legislation it is not possible to ensure that people wear their seat belts. Britain lags behind by not embodying this matter in legislation.

Moreover, the House is in favour of legislation on seat belt wearing by drivers and front seat occupants. In March 1976 the House of Commons voted in favour by 249 to 139, a majority of 110. In March 1979 the issue again came before the House on a Bill brought forward by the Labour Government. The vote then was 244 to 147, a majority of 97. In July 1979 a Private Member's Bill was carried by 139 to 48, a majority of 91. Therefore, hon. Members voted three to one in favour of such legislation. It is perfectly clear that this is something that the House wants.

At least 30 Ministers and Whips have voted on a free vote for such a measure, including the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Secretary of State for Social Services and his whole team, and half the transport team. One half of the transport team voted one way and the other half the other way. There are only two of them. I wish that there were a third, because I suspect that two-thirds of the transport team would have voted in favour.

On early-day motion No. 104 there are 143 signatures calling on the Secretary of State to introduce the legislation. I hope that he will see that it is an all-party motion, supported by many of his colleagues. I assure him that a new clause on seat belts will be tabled before Report. It will be on an all-party basis. If he thinks that these matters are important, whatever his personal view may be, if he is against it he needs time to state his case, just as I and others will need time to state the case for it. We are talking about lives and permanently maimed persons. He is saying that this matter, drinking and driving and all the other parts of the Bill, are to be taken on Report in one day of parliamentary time. That is ludicrous. It is a disgrace that he should suggest this sort of truncation, whatever the arguments in Committee. I am not a member of the Committee, and after hearing the exchanges that have taken place during the debate I cannot pretend that I am particularly sad that I am not.

This is a matter for Parliament to decide. What I resent most deeply about the motion is that we are being given only one day to debate the major issues, including road safety. It would be grossly irresponsible if the Government proceeded on the route that they have taken. Of course they will gut their guillotine motion, but I plead with the Secretary of State to consult his colleagues. Now that he is a Secretary of State he has even more influence than he had before. He can tell them that it will be easier in the House and in the country if we are given more than one day to debate these issues. He knows that road safety concerns the public and that there is a massive build-up of support for certain changes to ensure that we are in line with other countries. Support comes from such bodies as the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Surgeons, the Automobile Association, the association which represents consultants in accident and emergency departments, the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland—I could continue, for the list is endless. There is a tremendous build-up of opinion.

I want the Secretary of State to do two things. First, I want him to ask his colleagues for more time for Parliament to debate road safety. I hope that there will be more time in Committee. Secondly, major issues divide the House—as the Shadow Leader of the House said—not on party lines but in the way that Parliament has already expressed itself. Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that he will ask his colleagues to give us a free vote on the issues on which Parliament in earlier votes has always had a free vote? Anything less will look as though the Secretary of State is trying to clamp down on the views of so many of his colleagues, including his Undersecretary and the whole of the health team. It is vital that he should give me that assurance when he winds up the debate.

5.14 pm

Mr. Gary Waller (Brighouse and Spenborough)

Ever since being elected to the House I have tried to see the other person's point of view. I am inherently suspicious of anyone who claims a monopoly of wisdom on any issue. I confess that I share some of the annoyance of some members of the public who listen to Prime Minister's Question Time and get somewhat impatient because they are tired of hon. Members on both sides who shout and yell at one another and share only the certainty of being right on every issue.

When I was appointed to Standing Committee E on the Transport Bill I approached my task with a certain degree of humility. 1 do not consider myself an expert on the British Transport Docks Board. I was only too anxious to become better acquainted with the details of the subsidiaries of British Rail.

While I did not expect to find the degree of unity of purpose that exists in the Transport Select Committee, which I greatly welcome, I had hoped that there would be a recognition from the Opposition that the Government would get the legislation through the Committee, as they inevitably will, and therefore it would be sensible to try to ensure that the legislation was framed in the best possible way for the transport industries concerned and for the general public, who are extremely interested in many parts of the Bill. That, I would maintain, is one of the main responsibilities of any Opposition.

I am afraid that I have been disappointed. I have nothing against Opposition Members of the Committee, but though while I looked searchingly and long for good sense in their arguments it seemed curiously elusive. That was sad, because neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary can be accused of dogmatism. By their actions in Committee they have shown that they are only too willing to be persuaded by good arguments, provided that they are convincing. Neither has been unresponsive to argument. Neither would hang on to a premise if it was fundamentally unsound.

For some reason, the Opposition have not been willing to put forward good arguments. I find that difficult to understand. Both my right hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend are such good advocates that I looked forward with relish to hearing them demolish the arguments" put forward by the Opposition. But the Opposition made the task of the Front Bench team too easy.

Mr. Prescott

How would you know if you did not understand it?

Mr. Waller

Although the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was addressing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he meant to refer to me.

As I have listened to my right hon. Friend and to my hon. and learned Friend in the debate I have learnt a great deal, but I have leamt nothing from the Opposition.

In the last Session I was appointed a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill that became the Transport Act 1980. Unfortunately, I seem to have spent a good deal of my parliamentary life listening to the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. In the last Session the Opposition arguments were hardly concisely put, but on occasion they made out a case to be answered. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that the bus industry was in disagreement with some of the Bill's provisions. On this occasion the British Railways Board welcomes part I of the Bill.

In Committee, the Opposition have almost invariably substituted quantity for quality. For the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East to speak for two and a half hours on one amendment and one hour and 20 minutes on another so-called probing amendment demonstrates an amazing degree of verbosity of the sort displayed by people in love with the sound of their own voices.

There has been no talk of strategy. If such loquacity had achieved anything I would understand, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said, there are only two things that one can achieve with a filibuster. Either one delays matters so much that one puts legislation at risk—there was clearly no chance of that happening on this occasion—or one wants to achieve a guillotine. The second aim has been achieved. No other advantage could possibly be gained from the tactics displayed by the Opposition. The only result has been to make the timetable motion inevitable.

Mr. Prescott

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we advanced a proposition for a timetable on the Committee stage, as we did for the Transport Bill in 1980, that the Whips came to an agreement, but that ultimately they were overruled by the Minister?

Mr. Waller

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will deal in detail with that point when he replies to the debate. The Opposition's argument now seems to be that they put forward a timetable and that because the Government were unwilling to accept it they were prepared to talk at any length to show their disapproval, even though it made the guillotine inevitable. That makes no sense to me, and I am sure that at the end of the debate it will be seen to make no sense to the majority of hon. Members.

My hon. Friends and I in the Committee have not sat silently, as Government Members do in some Standing Committees, but our interventions and speeches have been extremely brief, mostly limited to five minutes or less. For the Opposition to dream of arguing, as did the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that Government Back Benchers are in any way responsible for the guillotine reveals the poverty of their case. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East to look puzzled, but if he examines Hansard for the last sitting of the Committee, which took place after the guillotine motion had been announced, he will see that when one of my hon. Friends was speaking—briefly—to an amendment, he said from a sedentary position that it was my hon. Friends who had brought about the guillotine. That is typical of the poverty of the case advanced by the hon. Gentleman.

All this is extremely unfortunate, because, like many hon. Members from both sides of the House, I have a special interest in part IV relating to road safety. By their attitude the Labour Members of the Committee have made it inevitable that part IV will command less attention than it would have done. The hon Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) professes a great interest in road safety. He has told us that when driving on the road he never exceeds the speed limit. In that he may be unique among the members of the Committee. Regrettably, he adopts the same approach to speaking in the House and in Committee. On Second Reading he spoke for 27 minutes during the last hour before the winding-up speeches, even though Mr. Speaker had requested short speeches from both sides because a large number of hon. Members were hoping to catch his eye.

Mr. Sheerman

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this entirely relevant? I thought that we were discussing events in the Standing Committee. The hon. Member is now referring to my speech on Second Reading. As there was no limit on the length of speeches on Second Reading, I had every right to speak for 27 minutes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

I am sure that the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) will relate his remarks to the motion before the House.

Mr. Waller

Indeed I shall, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening more carefully he would have noticed that I spoke not merely of his loquacity on Second Reading, but of his loquacity on occasions—he was not as bad as other hon. Members—in Committee.

On Second Reading the hon. Gentleman spoke of Chadwick's legislation relating to the sewerage system, of classical Greek literature, and of Mill's treatise"On liberty". The one area of which he spoke little was the contents of the Bill. In speaking for so long he prevented other hon. Members, including myself, who wanted to speak on the road safety aspects—

Mr. Sheerman

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have already made the point that this debate is not about our Second Reading debate. I think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are quite out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) heard my ruling. If I need his help I shall ask him for it. If he can contain himself he might have the opportunity of saying what he wants to say in his own way.

Mr. Waller

I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Huddersfield East, by the length of his speech on the Second Reading, prevented other hon. Members who wanted to raise the road safety aspects of the Bill from doing so. As a result of the loquacity of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness and his hon. Friends, hon. Members on both sides who wanted to speak at length on a non-party basis about the road safety aspects will be unable to do so.

Mr. Cowans

I take the point that the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) is making about my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman). My hon. Friend can, of course, answer for himself. But are not the Government, by applying the guillotine, limiting the hon. Gentleman's ability to speak on that part of the Bill that interests him? Would it not be in his interest to vote against the guillotine and thus give himself an opportunity to speak for longer?

Mr. Waller

I, too, do not like guillotines, but it is clear that no Government could allow the situation in the Committee to persist. It is clear that the guillotine was inevitable, and that is why I certainly support it.

I may have been a little hard on the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East, who is a constituent of mine—

Mr. Fowler

My hon. Friend may have lost the hon. Gentleman's vote.

Mr. Waller

I should be sad if that were so. Lest hon. Members think that I have been hard on the hon. Gentleman, in spite of his points of order, let me say that I find him, in my relationships with him, an agreeable person. Perhaps I should stop there, because if I am too nice about the hon. Gentleman I may put him in some trouble in his constituency when it comes to reselection.

When the Bill is enacted part IV will inevitably attract the greatest public attention, as it already has.

Mr. Cowans

Why?

Mr. Waller

The answer is that people will be directly and immediately affected by part IV in a way that they will not be by the other parts. The beneficial results of the other parts will take longer to become apparent. Part IV will affect everybody immediately. Every motorist will be subject to the provisions of the Act and had better know what they say. The media will therefore give a lot of attention to part IV.

I am especially anxious that the growing army of motor cycle users and enthusiasts should have the satisfaction of seeing that the part of the Bill that affects them is adequately debated in Committee.

Mr. Cowans

Vote with us then.

Mr Waller

Amid the general noise that that comment provoked, a number of hon. Members said"Hear, hear." I watched to see whether the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East was among them, because it was he who ensured that the proposed changes affecting motor cyclists could not be adequately debated on Second Reading because the length of his speech meant that I was unable to speak about the motor cycle aspects of the Bill. Motor cyclists are entitled to information on many questions that are left unanswered by the Bill. They want to know a lot more about the two-part tests—

Mr. Ennals

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waller

The right hon. Gentleman did not give way to me when he was speaking, but I happily give way to him.

Mr. Ennals

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for doing so. In view of his remark, why is he not on our side in wanting the Bill to have longer in Committee and, even more important, longer on the Floor of the House? These issues affect all of us, not just those who have been having their loquacious debates in Standing Committee.

Mr. Waller

It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that now, but he ought to have said something to his hon. Friends who are in the Committee to prevent our reaching this stage. I assume that because he is interested in the road safety aspects of the Bill he will have been following events in Committee closely. He has had enough experience in this House to know what the result of those events would be. It was up to him to use his influence. He was in a unique position among Labour Members row in the Chamber to speak to the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness and to use his good offices to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to adopt different tactics on the Bill. He failed, apparently, to do so. Otherwise, we would not be in the present position.

There are a number of matters affecting motor cyclists in the Bill that deserve to be debated. Motor cyclists want to know about the requirements for provisional riders to take and pass a test if they are to continue to use the road. They want to know much more about the two-part test itself. Enabling legislation is included in the Bill, but how these provisions will work is left to the imagination. I do not blame the Government, but people are entitled to an answer and want a debate on that answer.

I have been impressed by the arguments of many motor cyclists who have expressed their concern to me relating to the Bill. They recognise the dangers that exist—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman a certain amount of latitude. I think that he should come back to the motion that we are debating.

Mr. Waller

I want to say why it is important that hon. Members should have adequate time to debate these aspects of the Bill. Deferring to what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to take up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) on the need lor a longer debate on matters that are not at present included in the Bill but could be included if new clauses were approved. I think that I shall remain in order if I stick to the narrow ground to which the right hon. Gentleman confined himself.

I know that some hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Norwich, North, want to see new clauses in the Bill. The timetable vitally affects the chances of new clauses getting into the Bill. The case for the compulsory wearing of seat belts is that, in an accident, the chance of death or serious injury is greatly lessened. I do not think that any hon. Member will disagree with that contention. The real question that has to be asked is whether those countries where the compulsory wearing of seat belts has been introduced have seen any reduction in casualties.

Mr. Ennals

Yes, enormously.

Mr. Waller

The right hon. Gentleman says"Enormously". Perhaps he can tell me later how many countries he has examined. It is curious that the advocates of the compulsory wearing of seat belts always cite one State in Australia where casualties were reduced.

Mr. Cowans On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know, whether you have the power, but is not this debate a good reason for stopping the guillotine and going back into Committee to continue discussing these points? Would that be within your power?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I can only try to encourage the hon. Member to contain himself within the bounds of the motion. There are times when it is difficult to see how his argument is leading towards that.

Mr. Waller

I have been careful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to stay in order, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Norwich, North was careful to stay in order, when he spoke for 10 minutes exclusively on seat belts. In view of the claims made for compulsion, it is surprising that no proper, comparative research has been done. Now, however. Mr. John Adams has done some research—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Whatever Mr. John Adams may or may not have found when he made his researches, I fail to follow how that can be relevant to the motion.

Mr. Waller

[seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is well known that a number of hon. Members have given notice that they intend to table new clauses. The question whether those new clauses are ultimately included in the Bill will inevitably hang on the amount of time available. I think that Opposition Members will agree that time is the most critical factor.

Mr. Booth

It is of the essence.

Mr. Waller

It is of the essence, as the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness says, whether such new clauses are included in the Bill.

Mr. Ennals

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this not becoming a filibuster by the hon. Gentleman? I spoke for 10 minutes and no more. The hon. Gentleman has spoken for nearly three times as long and is carrying on the debate in a filibustering manner.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must realise that we are not debating the merits of any part of the Bill. We must come back to the motion.

Mr. Waller

I defer to what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is sad that we shall not have time to debate the important points that it appears the right hon. Member for Norwich, North would like to see debated. The right hon. Gentleman did not give way to me, just as those who favour the compulsory wearing of seat belts are apparently unwilling to listen to the opposition. I hope that it will be accepted that those who want compulsion and who want the new clauses have to prove their case. I recommend them to read the opposite case. Unless they are sure that the case is wrong, they have no right to pursue the new clauses—

Mr. Ennals

I shall write a paper on it.

Mr. Waller

I look forward to future discussions with the right hon. Gentleman on this point.

Fortunately, the House provides an opportunity for arguments to be assessed against one another, even if the Opposition do not always take advantage of these opportunities. It is not the timetable motion, but the manner in which the Opposition have behaved during the Committee stage that has curtailed debate on the Bill and on the points that hon. Members wanted to discuss. I am sorry that some of those points will not now be tested. I accept fully the need for the motion.

5.36 pm

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield, East)

I shall be brief. I shall spend two minutes explaining why I believe that the guillotine motion should not have been introduced.

I am among those who believe that responsibility for the motion must rest with the Government. I refer to the Second Reading in its broad sense and not in the sense of those hon. Members who made long or short speeches. Hon. Members stated constantly to the Secretary of State that if the Bill was introduced in two distinct parts, one party political and controversial and the other non-controversial, there would be difficulty. Anyone could have predicted that we would be back in the Chamber at this juncture discussing a guillotine motion, not because of the activity of the Opposition but due to the manner in which the Bill was devised.

Mr. Cyril Townsend rose—

Mr. Sheerman

I shall not give way. I intend to speak only briefly. The hon. Gentleman will have his turn.

The seeds of the guillotine debate existed at the Bill's inception. It is not only the case that there are two distinct parts of the Bill that are incompatible—although it is a great shame that the Bill was introduced in this form—but that there are five distinct Bills in the first part of the Bill dealing with separate parts of the transport world, the docks, the ports and British Rail. It is due to the broad range of the Bill that we are discussing the motion. The Opposition have been trying to do their job of scrutinising every aspect of the Bill and paying a certain amount of regard to each.

The Bill deals with the livelihood of men and women in many separate industries. It would be unfair for hon. Members to gloss over these parts of the Bill. We recognise the mentality of the Government. Their approach is that these are smaller industries and not the great industries with hundreds of thousands of employees, which means that these parts of the Bill can be skated over and that scrutiny can go by the board. The Opposition do not take that view. The men and women involved deserve a proper voice in the House and we have been doing everything in our power to make sure that their future and that of the transport industry do not go by default.

Proceedings on the Bill and the activities of the Government lead me to believe that the present structure is not the right one for dealing with the second part of the Bill and that we should take responsibility for road safety away from the Department of Transport and give it to the Department of Health and Social Security. The way that the Government have presented the Bill shows that they have the wrong attitude to transport safety. I say that only in passing, because I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) off the straight and narrow path of order.

I suggest that there may be a deeper significance in what has gone on. We may be discussing a guillotine motion, not because of the design of the Bill, but because in a smoke-filled room, either inside or outside the House, there was an agreement to push the two parts of the Bill together in order to achieve certain objectives. It may be that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary were pawns in a much bigger game and that certain powerful people who are opposed to certain aspects of transport safety engineered the timetable dispute and the scenario in which we find ourselves. I do not have a persecution complex, and I am not becoming paranoid, but it is worth dwelling on the possibility that there is something in that argument.

Because of the guillotine there will be insufficient scrutiny of important parts of the Bill that will deeply affect the people of this country. We all have our personal priorities—some will put one priority above another, while others will take a different view—but I believe that one of the most important priorities, if we can salvage anything from the rest of the Committee stage, is the question of safety for motor cyclists.

The motion will result in all of us being dissatisfied with the end product. I do not believe that it has anything to do with the actions of the Opposition. No Conservative Member has made a comparative analysis with other Bills. There has been no evidence of an exorbitant amount of time being spent on the Bill. Much longer has been spent in Committee on many other Bills and the discussion of many clauses of other measures has taken far longer than four or five hours.

There is no indication that the Government have an overburdened legislative timetable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said last year that there was so much activity in the Committee Corridor that it resembled the Chicago stockyards. That is not the situation in this Session. We are moving at a comparatively leisurely pace. There is not one iota of justification for a guillotine at this stage—unless it is a wicked attempt by the Government to cut off debate on important parts of the Bill.

An actress once said that she found a film producer personally agreeable, but she hated his guts. I gathered that that was the message of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough when he constantly referred to me in his revealing speech.

We shall neglect vital areas of the Bill as a result of the guillotine. I appeal to the Secretary of State, the Under-secretary and any other Conservative Member of good will to reconsider not only the motion, but the fact that only one day will be devoted to the Report stage. That will be a travesty. The House's reputation stands or falls on the fact that there are some issues that are not party political and on which we do not take up preconceived stances and do our gladiatorial act.

The Government and the Opposition could work together and have an important and decisive effect on the way that those outside the House regard what we do. The motion demonstrates that at some stage a shabby deal was settled, and that will be deplored by all men and women of good sense.

5.46 pm

Mr. Iain Mills (Meriden)

It is sad that we are debating a timetable motion, because the Bill is undoubtedly important.

At the start of my contribution, which will be short, I wish to point out that when I came to Parliament I decided that transport would be one of my interests. I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary on having introduced, in less than two years, two complete Transport Bills and on initiating debates on heavy lorries and many other highly controversial matters. They are seen to be taking a great interest in transport and to be doing something about it, and I am sure that that is recognised in the country as well as in Parliament.

In our lengthy debates in Committee the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary have gone beyond all reasonable limits to answer the many probing and searching inquiries of Labour Members. At times it must have been most frustrating for the Ministers, but they performed their task with aplomb. Indeed, the Opposition paid effusive compliments to one of the Ministers for his capable and nice nature and the kind way in which he had answered their queries. For them to harp on the Minister's actions can be seen only as extremely hypocritical. The Ministers have done a remarkably good job, as Labour Members would admit if there they were honest about it.

I feel sorry for the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott), because I know that he will lead for the Opposition on the road safety measures in the Bill. I am sure that he and hon. Members on both sides were eagerly anticipating those debates and would like to see more time for them. It must be frustrating for the hon. Gentleman to see the measures relating to British Rail and the British Transport Docks Board, though they are undoubtedly important, weighed b)' his right hon. and hon. Friends, in terms of time, against the thousands of lives that might be saved by the right measures to improve the safety of motor cycles, which we hope to include in later parts of the Bill.

Mr. Stott

It is true that I attach great importance to the road safety clauses, but I attach great importance also to the livelihoods of those employed by BR and the BTDB. I agree with everthing that my right hon. and hon. Friends have said and the way that they have moved amendments to protect the livelihoods and negotiating rights of those employees. I do not believe that we have wasted the Committee's time in deploying important arguments, particularly as my right hon. and hon. Friends were talking about a different part of the Bill.

Mr. Mills

I always welcome the contributions of the hon. Member for Westhoughton, when they are interventions. In the famous four hours-plus debate on the naming of Associated British Ports, the amendment that was finally accepted was the one standing in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and myself. I gave up the opportunity to make a lengthy contribution in Committee and confined my remarks to a short interjection on one specific matter because I wanted the Committee to make progress and complete the discussions on the subject. I was quite appalled therefore when the Opposition spent so much time on the clause and then voted on every consequential amendment regarding Associated British Ports.

I accept what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but what happened was a little odd. Of course Oppositions must oppose, but we were amazed, after 18 sittings, having debated on one occasion 30 groups of amendments, covered six clauses and nearly five pages during the lengthy period leading up to the announcement of the guillotine, to find that on the Thursday afternoon, after the announcement, we covered two and a half clauses, one schedule and three pages in four and a half hours. They must have had a reason for doing that. Perhaps it concentrates the mind to know that the guillotine is on its way.

I feel sorry for the many capable, talented and good Opposition Members that it was the Opposition Front Bench that occupied a disproportionate amount of time. I sympathise with them for having been unable to exercise their rhetoric and wit as much as they would have wished.

Mr. Cowans

What the hon. Gentleman says confirms that we adopted a responsible attitude in seeking to deal with some of the essential matters which were, unfortunately, part of a controversial Bill, and which some of us felt should have been dealt with separately.

Mr. Mills

I am in favour of more and more Transport Bills. I look forward to them next year and the year after. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller), I dream that every year I shall be seen in the same company, debating endlessly more and more clauses. It is something that both haunts and delights me, but I am not sure how to resolve my confusion and dichotomy.

It is tragic for the millions of motorists whose lives and safety are controlled and affected by part IV that less time will be given to these important provisions than we should have wished. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. Inevitably, the two sides of the House will have different points of view, but had we spent less time on the first two parts, we could have spent longer on the subsequent parts.

My right hon. Friend assured me at Question Time that we should be able to debate each category of fixed penally in clause 19 and schedule 7, and in view of the many amendments that were tabled by both sides of the Committee, at the instigation of many important motoring organisations, representiing nearly 15 million motorists, it must seem incredible to those organisations that the Bill has been given the time that it has and that the affairs, however important, of the British Rail subsidiaries and British Transport Docks Board are considered by the Opposition to have such earth-shattering importance that they take precedence over such important matters. Opposition Members cannot get away from parliamentary procedures and cannot fail to have understood that that was inevitable.

Mr. Cowans

I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely, and I extend an invitation to him. Will he join me in a joint approach to his right hon. Friend, even at this late stage, to withdraw the road safety part of the Bill and make it into a separate measure so that adequate discussion can be given to the matter?

Mr. Mills

The wit and skill of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) entertained us only too frequently in Committee. I appreciate what he says, but we must get the debate moving, because next year other transport matters of pressing importance will need to be considered. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing together these slightly diverse but important matters. Therefore I cannot join the hon. Gentleman in such an approach.

I turn to the valid points that were put by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough. It is important to consider in some detail the motor cycle provisions in the Bill. I am sure that we should all like to table amendments and new clauses to improve safety for motor cyclists. The Three Spires Motor Cycling Club in my constituency has several good ideas that I should like to explore, but because of the time that has been spent on the first parts of the Bill it is unlikely that we shall be able to consider them.

Mr. Prescott

The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about times. The Bill has five parts. Even with the possible guillotine time—depending on what the Business Committee decides—sufficient time can be given to the provisions dealing with road safety. It is not as heavy-ended as the hon. Member suggests, though there will still not be enough time to deal with the important provisions relating to road safety.

Mr. Mills

I am glad that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) agrees with me that they are important provisions. I shall not say that the important clauses are the ones on the points system, drinking and driving, and motor cycles, because I know that there are other vitally important provisions. I know, for instance, that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) will want to explore, in clause 29, many matters affecting vehicle excise duty and the relationship of lorry weights to roads and the effects of lorries and axle weights on the roads. That, too, is an important clause. I do not see how, therefore, in the time that is left to us we can resolve all these important matters.

Moreover, we need a full and searching debate on vehicle excise duty in preparation for whatever will be the fate of the heavy lorry in the future and because it will have a massive effect on haulage generally. I have some experience of the road haulage industry, and I must therefore take some responsibility for the truckers and ensure that matters affecting their livelihoods are fully debated. However, we must not give undue weight to one section at the expense of others.

I conclude by referring to the need to debate the new clauses dealing with road humps, which my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and I tabled. They are significant. They have been considered by Governments over a considerable period. If drafting amendments are all that are required, I hope that we can attract both Government and Opposition support for what will be an excellent measure. It would be tragic if we were unable to debate road humps fully, because they could make a significant contribution to reducing speed in areas with a high incidence of accidents.

This is a diverse Bill. It has to be. If it will result in better safety for road users and more justice for motorists, I urge Opposition Members to feel that the guillotine motion is of benefit to them as well as to the Government.

6 pm

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras, South)

It seems to be traditional on these occasions for Opposition Members to denounce Government guillotine motions by comparing them with, say, the intervention of King Charles when he brought troopers to the House in an attempt to arrest five of its Members. However, I do not think that on this occasion the Opposition should go to that extent in condemning the Government's action, because the guillotine is a device that has been adopted by successive Governments to get through their business.

As Back Benchers, we ought to consider what our job is. It seems to me that, in addition to explaining our respective political stances and scrutinising Bills to discover exactly what they mean and what Governments intend, our real objective in this law factory which we are paid to attend is to produce good, clear, laws which can be worked by those who have to operate them, without having to resort to a group of fancy, highly paid lawyers who will go on to make fortunes out of any lack of clarity in the laws produced here. There is no doubt, for example, that the drink-drive laws are a disgrace to the House of Commons and all its procedures. They have been a source of great confusion, a great deal of trouble, and fortunes for the lawyers. If we improve them, our time here will have been well spent.

In Committee we have been considering a Bill which covers two different spheres—the denationalisation of certain parts of the present transport industry and road safety. The two are quite distinct, and it is the bringing of them together that has been the main source of the Government's problems. I suggest that both these aspects merit close attention. There seems to be too great an assumption on the part of those hon. Members who have spoken so far that it is only the road safety aspect that merits such close attention. However, the scrutiny of the denationalisation proposals so far shows what importance has to be attached to looking at these proposals.

For a start, the Government had no mandate from their election manifesto to enact these proposals or even to introduce them. Secondly, we have had no clear indication of what they intend, and we have used the opportunity provided by the earlier debates in Committee to find out a great deal about the structure, the shareholding and the future organisation of companies at present in the public sector which are being transferred to the private sector.

We have discovered, for example, that the Bill will allow British Rail to sell off not only what we all regard as subsidiaries, but major parts of its system such as the high-speed train, the advanced passenger train or even—a point that seems to have been taken up by the Minister—to hive off of the Southern region of British Rail, assuming that the Minister can find someone to buy it, which seems highly unlikely.

I took offence when the Leader of the House referred to part I of the Bill and described it as"a mere four clauses". I remind the right hon. Gentleman that those mere four clauses affect the livelihoods of 23,000 people who work in the British Rail subsidiaries, and public assets amounting to £300 million. It is up to the right hon. Gentleman to take that view, of course, but my own view is that four clauses of that importance can hardly be described by the use of the word"mere". The very fact that that number of jobs and that scale of public assets are involved merit the degree of scrutiny that the Committee has given that part of the Bill.

I add as a passing thought that perhaps it was not all to the good that King Charles did not get at least one of the five Members. If he had succeeded in getting the first parliamentary Pym we would not have been left with the present one as Leader of the House and we might not have been considering this guillotine motion today.

We have been trying, and we shall continue to try, despite the guillotine, to protect the jobs of those who are being transferred out of the public sector into the private sector. We shall want especially to study the pensions provisions. The Secretary of State was so much in agreement with us about the complexity and difficulty of the pensions provisions that he acceded to our request to delay consideration of schedule 1 so that everyone would have more time to consider that complex issue. We have still to come to that. We have also to consider the carrying forward of various rights and privileges which people working in the British Rail subsidiaries enjoy at present and which they hope to continue to enjoy in the private sector.

We have also been trying to bring about a proper degree of consultation with all the staff involved both during the process of denationalisation and afterwards. We have failed to make any progress with the Ministers, but there should be no criticism of those of us who have attempted to bring this about.

Equally, we need to give attention to road safety, and I stress the word"equally". We need to look to the future and at what the Government are proposing in this guillotine. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the arguments that will be batted to and fro in this debate about who caused what sorts of delays, the Government are proposing only 13 more sittings of the Standing Committee and just one day for the Report stage.

We need to ask ourselves why the Government want the guillotine, and then we need to look at the proposal to have only one day on Report. Having done that, it may be that we shall discover the answer. The behaviour of the Government in not accepting the proposition agreed between the two Whips in the Committee can only mean that the Government never intended not to have a guillotine. The guillotine has nothing to do with their concern about delays in the Standing Committee. The reason for it is that they do not relish spending very long on the Floor of the House on Report because the Secretary of State is embarrassed about what the House as a whole might do, not to remove provisions from the Bill, but to add clauses and thereby improve it.

As I understand it, the Secretary of State does not like the prospect of the idea circulating in golf club bars and other places where he wishes to be well thought of that he is the Secretary of State who was responsible for a Bill that introduced the compulsory wearing of seat belts, and he probably does not want to go down in history in the eyes of his constituents as the man who was associated with the introduction of something approaching random breath tests.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend

The hon. Gentleman has just referred to our having only one day on Report for this important measure. However, I put this basic question to him. He has done more than most in filibustering, so that we have taken 65 hours to consider five pages of the Bill. Did not the thought cross his mind when he was rambling on at a late hour in Committee that the inevitable result was likely to be only one hour to consider that sort of provision?

Mr. Dobson

If the hon. Gentleman refers to our proceedings in Committee he will see that I have not spoken at great length. It may be that my short speeches bore him so much that he thinks that they go on for a long time. But I have not spoken at great length; indeed, I have not made many contributions to the debates in Committee.

However, to respond to the hon. Gentleman's main question, I did not expect the Government to respond by saying that they proposed to allocate only one day for the Report stage. The Opposition always recognised that the Government might seek to curtail debate in Committee, but if they do that it seems logical that they should extend the Report stage. If the evidence of what has happened to date is anything to go by, generally we make such a mess of amendments introduced in Committee that they need to be put right on Report or further considerations need to be advanced. Anyone who argues in favour of curtailing debate in Committee must be in favour of having more than one day on Report.

It seems clear to me that it is this effort to reduce the possibility of some snags arising on Report and the Secretary of State, being embarrassed by the clearly expressed views of the House in the past on the wearing of seat belts that has led to this guillotine motion, rather than any substantial delays in Committee.

If the Bill comes out of Standing Committee in its present form, the odds are that we shall bring the House into disrepute. Yet again we shall produce road safety measures that will lead to considerable death and injury on the roads, and a fortune for the lawyers. That is what we have managed to produce with road safety measures so far. Instead of spending sufficient time on those road safety measures, either in Standing Committee or on Report, we shall produce the same shabby mess that we have produced before. The same lawyers who have been crawling over the present road safety legislation will do so again to yet more effect. We shall not obtain the clear resolution of those matters which the people have a right to expect.

Conservative Members on both Front and Back Benches can reasonably say that they would like to curtail the debate in Standing Committee, but to curtail the debate for the whole House on Report to one day is indefensible. No doubt, in his inimitable way, the Secretary of State will shortly defend the indefensible, which is part of his task as a senior member of this indefensible Government.

6.11 pm

Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test)

The debate is taking the pattern of most guillotine debates. There are some who want still more time, perhaps on both sides of the Chamber. There are others who have the responsibility of getting the Bill not only through the House, but through the other House, and for ensuring that it then becomes an Act of Parliament.

The British Rail element in part I and the British Transport Docks Board provision in part II are important. Any indecision, delay, filibustering and lack of attention by Committee Members to such important matters will tend to give a bad impression to those outside the House. They do not understand our procedures and do not realise that it is the duty of the Opposition to try to delay the Bill for as long as possible if they do not agree with certain parts of it. Consequently, the Opposition have a legitimate parliamentary reason for talking into the late hours of the night. Sometimes they may lose their train of thought and end up with what can only be called a form of gibberish. If Conservative Members were in Opposition, they would be doing precisely the same. Therefore, I do not blame the Opposition for wanting more time.

I was dismayed at the beginning of the Committee sittings because I felt that so much valuable time was being wasted on part I. There could have been an extension of debate if hon. Members had taken perhaps 10 minutes to make a point, but there were some extremely long speeches. In the minds of those who were making the speeches, they were worth while and to the point. However, those who, like myself, were trying to digest such speeches from the Opposition slowly but surely realised that time was being lost and that many parts of the Bill—we all have different priorities—would be left with little or no time for adequate debate. Everyone realises that my right hon. Friend is part of the system, as we all are. We must get Bills through during the parliamentary year. Both Houses of Parliament cannot operate in any other way.

We spent an excessive amount of time on part I. That important part of the Bill deals with the employment of many people. We were discussing a fundamental policy change. All those things were applicable.

Mr. Bidwell

The hon. Member took great pains to consult the working people in Southampton. In consequence, we treated him with much respect in his many contributions to the debate. His mind became clearer as he went along, as we kept intervening in his not-too-short speech. He expressed scepticism about the Government's position. We therefore thought for long periods that he would end up voting with the Opposition. We were optimistic about that. That is why we went on for rather longer than we otherwise would have done.

Mr. Hill

I must have been a more skilled debater than was apparent. At no time, except on one small issue, was there any likelihood that I would vote against my own Government. I congratulate them on certain parts, because I have always thought that privatisation was the way to run the British Transport Docks Board, or, as it will be known, Associated British Ports.

When we decided in Committee on the new name, which necessitated many changes in the Bill, why was it necessary to have a vote on each one? That seems a little irresponsible. The Opposition may be able to give a perfectly logical parliamentary reason why it is necessary, throughout the passage of the Bill, to have a vote every time the three words"Associated British Ports" come up. If there is a reason, I accept it, but several hours will be wasted on that alone.

Mr. Prescott

We did not vote on every amendment about Associated British Ports. The hon. Member said that we spent too much time on part I. On part II he came close to not supporting the Government, yet that related to the ownership of the ports, which we had explained on part I. He did not realise that and voted against it then. Therefore, he contradicted himself on part II.

Mr. Hill

We all want clarification of that statement. I readily give it. I do not wish large shareholders to take over the British Transport Docks Board. Consequently, when that matter came up, I made my views clear. It falls within Conservative policy that the spread of shares throughout the ports industry is something that we should all desire—not just the Conservative party, but the Labour Party. The point at issue was whether it would be possible to restrict the major shareholders at the beginning when the holding company was given its instructions by my right hon. Friend.

We decided and accepted that that was impossible to legislate for. Consequently, I hope that there will be a generous share option scheme for everyone who works in the ports. That was the point at issue. I should not have voted against the Government, because they are on stream for privatisation. All Conservative Members agree with privatisation.

What makes me rather nervous is the time that has been wasted on silliness. We are all guilty of that at times. One evening I said that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) had come up from"down below". The hon. Member thought that I meant Desdemona's or the devil's cavern. I do not know what he thought I meant. We had a long series of interventions on whether I should have said"down below". I meant one of the bars in the basement, where no one would begrudge the hon. Member a drink. That was the type of dialogue that was going on while important matters were being discussed which dealt with thousands of jobs. We had to get that right in Committee.

Our Committee will get it right. Time has been wasted and we are now entering the period when we must think of getting the Bill through both Houses by the summer. Because of the indecision that might be created, it will be helpful if the shares, certainly in Associated British Ports, can be floated by October. The only way that that can be done is for the Bill to get through both Houses before then.

Because of our constituency problems and interests we would all like more time, but, as parliamentarians, we know that time is one of our rarest commodities. The guillotine motion is necessary in all the circumstances, and I support it.

6.20 pm

Mr. Harry Cowans (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central)

For my sins, or otherwise, since I entered the House in 1976 I have served on the Committees on three Transport Bills—in 1978, 1979 and 1980. None of them was guillotined. I have had the dubious distinction of taking part in Committee debates both in Government and in Opposition, so I have heard what hon. Members opposite condemn as filibustering. Therefore, I do not join this debate as a complete amateur.

In 1978—the Secretary of State was not a right hon. Gentleman then; I congratulated him on his promotion shortly after—we had seven or eight all-night sittings, and they were justified. But that Bill was not guillotined, because it was a major piece of legislation. We sometimes become insular here. Many people outside are anxious that their views on the Bill should be expressed on their behalf. What is magical about 31 March or about having only a one-day debate on Report? If the Secretary of State believes that all the issues should be properly covered, it is in his interests to allow the maximum time. Early in May, or the second week in April, might have been just as acceptable.

We are in an unhappy situation. The speech of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) today showed what we have to put up with. He took 25 minutes to defend part IV of the Bill. I do not underrate part IV. Road safety is an important aspect and needs adequate time for debate, but I should find Conservative Members' views more credible if they had joined us on Second Reading in urging the Minister to make that part a separate Bill, which could then have been discussed on non-party lines.

That cannot be said of the other parts of the Bill. It is a pity that Conservative Members have not expressed so much concern about those provisions. It is an old story that time passes, quickly when one is interested in what is being discussed, but drags when one is not. The time that I have spent on the Bill has passed relatively quickly. Indeed, so quickly did we deal with this matter that I was unable to obtain a copy of the Official Report of our last sitting before coming into this debate. I had hoped to quote from it, but it is not available so I cannot.

Many Labour Members are concerned about part I, which deals with the livelihood of many people, since it relates to the powers of disposal of the British Railways Board. When there is uncertainty about so many jobs, the issues should be explored and occasionally exposed. The proposals for the new harbours company also involve the jobs of many thousands of people. They may not be important to Conservative Members, but they are important to us. We should explore these matters, especially for the benefit of those who are worried about their future and their conditions.

Part II, which deals with Associated British Ports and the holding company, is vital to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), who made a good constituency speech in Committee. Will he reflect on the fact that other hon. Members have a constituency interest in part II, yet none of us sought to curtail his speech in the way that he seeks to curtail ours?

Our debates bore fruit in the shape of four amendments that were accepted by the Government. Would they have been forthcoming if we had not discussed the matter at length? The first of those amendments, which was very important to people in the railway industry, was about all enactments; the second was the change of name to Associated British Ports; the third related to New Holland pier; and the fourth dealt with Windermere (Lakeside) pier. The acceptance of those amendments after hours of discussion proves our case.

I repeat the invitation that I have thrown out before. Even at this late stage, will Tory Members join me in petitioning the Secretary of State to frame a separate road safety Bill, so that we can give it adequate time and have a non-political debate?

Mr. Stanley Cohen (Leeds, South-East)

Both my hon. Friend and I have a vested interest in the subject of employment in transport. Does he agree that every hon. Member should be concerned about road safety and the effect of these provisions on people's lives? It is because we are concerned about saving life that we feel that there should be a separate Bill. We could then consider all these aspects so as to protect our constituents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech in an intervention.

Mr. Cowans

I fully appreciate what my hon. Friend says. Road safety is important. Lives are involved. It is right to have a proper debate. Let us not lose perspective. Lives might not be affected by parts I and II, but jobs and conditions of service are, and lives could be, affected. It is important that time is given, and seen to be given, to discuss jobs and conditions as it is to discuss road safety. The only people who deny that are the Government, who want to short-circuit our debates.

The Government could at least have discussed how much time we should spend on each part of the Bill, but they gave us no option. It is no good Government Back Benchers now complaining that their debates will be curtailed. They should have made representations to the Secretary of State. They should have asked him to ration the time, to ensure that part IV receives adequate discussion. Government Members were encouraged to join our debates. They have even been successful with their amendments. How can the guillotine be justified when we had two long debates on Government Back-Bench amendments which were accepted? That could have happened at 10.31 am.

I urge the Government to return to reality and common sense. They should convince people outside that they mean what they say and that adequate time will be given to all parts of the Bill, not just the parts that favour them.

6.33 pm

Mr. Albert Booth (Barrow-in-Furness)

We are discussing a drastic guillotine motion on a Bill that embraces a wide range of subjects. It embraces the sale of British Rail subsidiaries and the transfer of ownership of a large number of British ports now held by the British Transport Docks Board. It provides a new basis for totting up offences and the disqualification of drivers, new drinking and driving laws, motor cycle licensing law, road humps provisions, vehicle licensing and taxi licensing. The guillotine will bear on a large number of subjects.

We cannot agree about the relative importance of some of the subjects. Some hon. Members claim that some subjects are more important than others. However, members of the Committee will agree that some debates will be seriously curtailed. The controversy over some issues is not party political. It affects issues that cross parties and involve people throughout the country. We are discussing issues that were not mentioned in the Conservative Party manifesto and which were not laid before the House in a White Paper. The Bill was published just before Christmas, and several of my right hon. and hon. Friends consulted a number of bodies during the Christmas Recess. We were made well aware of the reservations about the Bill.

Since Second Reading it has been clear that the Bill contains a large number of controversial provisions. I put it to the House on Second Reading that it was worth considering separating the road safety provisions from the rest of the Bill and putting them in a second Bill. It could have been considered in a way that would have allowed us to be more free than is possible when we are discussing so many party political controversies. I believe that such a step would be welcome by hon. Members on both sides. I do not say that in a party political spirit.

Mr. Martin Stevens (Fulham)

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that however long the Government had given our Committee to discuss the Bill we should still have dragged on at the same pace? By introducing a guillotine the Government permit these matters to be discussed and for us all to take part in a way that was not possible before because of the slowness with which hon. Members proceeded.

Mr. Booth

I do not agree. I shall explain why later.

The guillotine is unnecessary and unreasonable. Bearing in mind the party political controversy in the first two parts of the Bill, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have shown remarkable restraint in not tabling any wrecking amendments. All our amendments seek to improve the Bill. We accept that the Bill has had a Second Reading and therefore that it is our duty in Committee to attempt to improve the Bill as an instrument of legislation and transport policy.

Several Opposition amendments have been accepted by the Government, many after they were pressed at great length. Any impartial lawyer would agree that the amendments have improved the Bill. We take no delight in the fact that it took so long to convince the Government that the amendments were necessary. It took us four and half hours to persuade the Government to accept an amendment to improve the relevance of the Bill to their objectives.

Members of the Committee will agree that we did not delay on procedural motions. We went through the sittings motions quickly. I contrast that with my experience as a Government Back Bencher in 1966 during the proceedings on the Iron and Steel Bill. I had the pleasure of listening to Conservative Members spend the whole of the first two sittings debating the sittings motion. They were entitled to do that. I chose to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to waste any time in that way. We wanted to get on with discussing the issues. In three weeks we moved to four sittings a week.

The Opposition have tried as reasonably as they can to facilitate proper consideration of the Bill. There are ways in which the Opposition can do that, but it is impossible for them to do so in Committee unless they have the co-operation of the Government. It could be argued that the Government have a duty to take some inititiative in the matter. We lost one day in Committee because the Government debated the Armitage report on the Floor of the House on a Committee sitting day, at less than 24 hours notice. That did nothing to help the progress of the Bill.

Amendments proposed in Committee cannot be debated properly to a rigid timetable unless there is an agreement between the Government and the Opposition. The Opposition do not have the same facilities as the Government for consultation about amendments. It takes a degree of understanding about timetabling for the matter to be dealt with properly. I say to Conservative Members who spoke about progress in terms of how many pages were dealt with in so many days that the process in which both they and we were involved upstairs was not the same as making sausages or operating a press tool in a factory, where so many items can be stamped out in an hour.

It cannot be measured in that way. We cannot simply count the number of words and say that we have dealt with so many words today and will deal with so many more tomorrow. We must read the words and understand their meaning. We must look at the merits involved in the words. Many of the words in the Bill are unique. Some of the Government amendments were unique in their phraseology. But that did not stop Conservative Members from objecting to our amendments which contained identical words. I agree that the wording was unique, but they dealt with exacting requirements of a complex industry and tried to have regard to the British judical process. We cannot achieve that by saying that we will deal with 20 or 30 amendments a day or four amendments an hour. Each must be judged on its merits.

I hope that when the Secretary of State replies to the debate he will at least acknowledge that the time taken on amendments varied greatly. We took longer on some than on others. We moved some quickly and some at length. We were entitled to do so, and we make no apology for that. It is the proper way to deal with this form of legislation.

Mr. Hill

The right hon. Gentleman says that at no time did he delay progress in Committee. Why was it necessary to vote each time on the question of Associated British Ports when there had been a long debate on the matter? It was passed by the Committee. All the remaining 100 amendments will take five or 10 minutes apiece if the Opposition call for a Division on each one.

Mr. Booth

It is not for me to delve into the merits of arguments in Committee when discussing a guillotine motion. However, I shall try to explain briefly to the hon. Gentleman what he should already know. Once the debate had taken place and it had been decided in favour of the title Associated British Ports, we refrained from debating the matter further. We proceeded to a vote immediately with no further discussion. We happen to believe that the name of the organisation is of considerable commercial importance. Had a private organisation been able to adopt the name"British Ports" it would have gained a considerable commercial advantage. We are opposed to the change of name from the British Transport Docks Board. We excercised our right to vote accordingly.

My point is that the amount of time spent on any one amendment is only a rough guide to Committee progress. However, for the purpose of the argument I shall take the time spent on amendments as a rough guide. We made 108 decisions in Committee. By decisions I mean votes on amendments or clause stand part. I do not include amendments that the Chairman allowed us to debate with other amendments. Therefore, we dealt with about six decisions per sitting. At some sittings we dealt with more, and at some with fewer. Conservative Members may laugh at that, but let them cast back their memories to long before there was any question of a guillotine, to Thursday 19 February. During that morning sitting we dealt with two Government amendments, five Oppositions amendments and two clauses stand part. Was that reasonable progress?

I am glad to see the Leader of the House in his place. He questioned whether reasonable progress had been made. Does he consider it reasonable progress for a Committee, in a two-and-a-half-hour morning sitting, to deal with live Opposition amendments, two Government amendments and two clauses stand part? If so, will he say whether there was any suggestion before that date that the Bill would be subjected to a guillotine? I suggest that that was reasonable progress. There was no suggestion of a guillotine at that time, so it could not have influenced our progress.

We were ready at all times to agree on a reasonable basis for progress. When we assess the progress of the Bill we are concerned not only with the number of pages dealt with, but with the powers that the Ministers are acquiring—very sweeping powers in some cases—in the first few pages of the Bill. We are concerned also with the rights of citizens, which are being taken away by this measure. We are concerned with the rights of working men to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment under this legislation and with their rights to be represented in the industries in which they work. That was affected by amendments that we discussed in Committee.

We make no apology for having taken longer on some issues than others. We appreciate that the Government wish to set a timetable for the Bill. We understand that because some of us have been in Government as well as in Opposition. That is why, when the Government made a proposition to us a fortnight ago about the time in which we might complete the second part of the Bill, we responded with a counter proposition which would have completed it only one day later than had been suggested by the Government. That offer was rejected in the afternoon of the day on which it was made. The offer was made in written exchanges between the Whips.

By refusing to accept a perfectly reasonable proposition, which would have cost the Government only one day more than they had estimated, they prevented us from making progress. Had they accepted the proposition we would have completed 14 clauses of the Bill by now. That was the offer that we held out to them.

In retrospect, I realise that in order to complete those 14 clauses we would have had to sit much longer into the night and the Government would have had to delay closing the Committee proceedings beyond 10 o'clock, 12 o'clock or 2 o'clock in the morning. If they had accepted our proposition, we would have been prepared to do that.

Some Government Back Benchers have complained about the length of Opposition speeches. Some of them behaved like Trappist monks in Committee, and therefore we understand their complaint. But some who did not behave like Trappist monks in Committee have joined in the complaints—for example, the hon. Members for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Southampton. Test (Mr. Hill). I ask them to look at the records and compare their contributions with those of some of my hon. Friends, for example my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen).

Time was not taken solely by Labour Members. I make no complaint about the speeches of the hon. Member for Faversham. He came to life in Committee when he realised that dockers in his constituency were affectd by the Bill. My only complaint is that his voting was not commensurate with the tenor of his speeches. However, his speeches were most welcome.

The timetable for the consideration of the Bill on Report is solely the Government's responsibility. The Opposition have not been consulted. The Government propose that we should have only one day on Report for a Bill of enormous complexity that contains so many issues. They do not propose even a whole day. We are expected to complete 35 clauses and 11 schedules in only nine and a half hours. We shall have to average five clauses an hour, and that does not take account of voting time. The proposal is ridiculous, and it indicates that the Government have no intention of allowing a proper debate on Report.

I was delighted to read the editorial in Saturday's Daily Express. It is rare for me to be delighted with its editorial. It referred to Ernie Bevin and said: To everybody he was Ernie. Starting adult life as an unskilled working man, he forged the mighty Transport and General Workers Union and later became a spokesman of world renown. He was the embodiment of the decency and strength of the Labour movement in the era when Labour was truly a national party. He believed in representing the dignity of Labour. The editorial went on to compare Labour leaders of today unfavourably with Ernie Bevin.

As it is the centenary of the birth of Ernie Bevin, I remind Conservative Members of one thing that they may have forgotten about Ernie. Ernie rose on 3 February 1920 at the Shaw inquiry to deploy a case about dockers and their working conditions. He spoke for 11 hours, over three days of the inquiry, in deploying his case. When he resumed his seat he was not condemned. He was not told that the inquiry would have to be guillotined. He was congratulated immediately by the judge who headed the inquiry. I am not promising my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr, Prescott) that 100 years from his birth there will be a glowing editorial about him in the Daily Express.

It is worth realising that speeches can be judged by features other than their length. There are some long speeches that deal with great and important topics. The issue of whether working men should be represented on the board of the holding company that controls British ports is a great topic.

The motion demonstrates that the Government have no intention of allowing proper debate on the Bill. Full parliamentary scrutiny would leave the Government's proposals discredited throughout the country. The Government are forcing the Bill through for narrow party political ends in a way that is a travesty of parliamentary democracy. I call upon the House to oppose the motion.

6.54 pm

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler)

I would have found the speech of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), especially the last part of it, a great deal easier to take if I were not aware of the filibustering tactics of the Opposition Front Bench in Committee over the past few weeks. Until Thursday afternoon these tactics had allowed the Government only five pages of a 76-page Bill after almost 60 hours of debate. These tactics have produced two speeches from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) of two and a half hours each. That will be the recollection of any member of the Committee and it can be checked easily by anyone.

When the right hon. Gentleman complains of the monstrosity of the guillotine procedure and the rights of citizens, I remind him of what happened on 20 July 1976 when the Labour Government introduced five guillotines on one day. The right hon. Gentleman supported one of those motions passionately. I remind him of the occasion because he was guillotining the Dock Work Regulation Bill, one of the most deeply controversial Bills to appear before Parliament in the past 20 years.

Mr. Booth

That guillotine motion followed a completely unfettered consideration in Committee.

Mr. Fowler

I shall quote what the right hon. Gentleman said in proposing the guillotine motion in 1976. I accept that there are differences, and I shall refer to them. He said: In the last analysis the Government must retain the right to use whatever majority they can command to obtain their legislation."—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1665.] There are two differences. The first is that the Bill that we are now considering in Committee had a Second Reading majority of 77. Most of the minority parties apart from the Labour Party voted with the Government. The Dock Work Regulation Bill scraped through with a majority of only seven. All the Opposition parties voted against it and there was a deep division inside the Labour Party. The second difference is that in 1976 the then Government did not allow a three-hour debate on the guillotine motion. They guillotined two Bills with one motion—the Dock Work Regulation Bill and the Health Services Bill, the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) being responsible for the latter measure.

Mr. Ennals

It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman does not recall the circumstances. The then Labour Government introduced the motion on the Health Services Bill to give more time to the House because the then Conservative Opposition were denying us a sittings motion that was designed to give more time for debate and not to curtail it.

Mr. Fowler

We have been in the House long enough to consider that argument with a certain amount of cynicism. No one challenges the right hon. Gentleman's right to defeat the Bill, but we challenge his right to lecture the House on parliamentary ethics.

The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness is only a supporting player in the story. The Opposition's tactics were set out in the debate on the Queen's Speech by the Leader of the Opposition, who said that the Opposition would fight the Bill all the way. That was his clearly stated policy. Last Thursday the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) referred to the timetable motion as being"quite intolerable" and advised us to read his speeches about timetable motions over the weekend. He said that if we did we would return to this place much wiser men.

In my wish ever to be helpful, I read the right hon. Gentleman's speeches. I agree that they repay study. They reveal him as the then Leader of the House pushing through five guillotine motions on one day. They also reveal that he supported guillotine motions from not only the Front Bench but the Back Benches. His most notable and passionate speech from the Back Benches in favour of a guillotine motion was on the Transport Bill of 1968.

The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) dwelt on 1967 and 1968. He forgot to mention that the Transport Bill of 1968 was guillotined. He was then the Chief Whip. The enormous measure of 1968 is four times larger than the Bill now before us.

Mr. John Silkin

The 1968 Bill had 195 hours of debate in Committee. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Leader of the House, who said during the timetable motion on the Scotland Bill in 1978 that each guillotine motion must be judged on its merits and that one must never quote precedents from the past?

Mr. Fowler

The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that guillotine motions should be judged on their merits. We shall ask the House to decide this motion on its merits. The complaint of the Minister of Transport at the time—Mrs. Castle—and the right hon. Member for Deptford, who was then Government Chief Whip, was that progress on the 1968 Bill had deteriorated from 1.9 hours per clause to 2.8 hours. The average number of hours spent on each clause in this Bill is just under eight hours, with 19½ hours spent on clause 1 and 20½ on clause 5. Compared with that, the progress on the 1968 Bill was like that of an express train.

Mr. Silkin

I cannot remember whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the House at the time, but the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was then leading for the Opposition and it was impossible to reach agreement with him. That is not the case on this Bill.

Mr. Fowler

There is a precise and exact analogy. However, I must get on.

At that stage the Leader of the Opposition was a Back Bencher. His reasons for supporting the guillotine made parliamentary common sense. He stated: Everybody knows how our procedures are operated in this House. Everybody watches the timetable … As we get past a certain date, it can be calculated by clever Chief Whips—and the Chief Whip of the Tory Party is clever"— some things never change— that if they turn on the heat, then they cannot merely disrupt this Bill, but disrupt the rest of the timetable."—[Official Report, 14 March 1968; Vol. 760, c. 1708.] His advice was that at that stage it would be foolish for anyone to start anything approaching a filibuster. It is always a great pleasure to read the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition, particularly those that he made as a Back Bencher. With respect, it would have been far better had he given that excellent advice to his Front Bench team on this Bill.

By any standards, the Opposition, and particularly their Front Bench team, have filibustered the Bill. One problem is that they have three official spokesmen. There are more Shadow Ministers than Ministers. Also, the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), feels no constraint about intervening.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fowler

That confirms my point.

Mr. Robinson

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fowler

I cannot. I now have only six minutes left.

Mr. Robinson

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is clear that the Minister will not give way in the time left to him. He must be allowed to continue.

Mr. Fowler

I apologise, but I now have only five minutes left.

On the amendments to change the name"British Ports" to"Associated British Ports", the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East spoke for one hour and 40 minutes, the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness for 30 minutes and the Opposition Whip for 25 minutes. On another occasion the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East made a speech lasting two hours and 40 minutes. It started on the morning of Thursday 26 February and ended at about 9 pm in the evening. He was interrupted 15 times by his own Whip. The evidence of the Opposition Front Bench tactics is in Hansard for everyone to see.

Mr. Robinson

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fowler

I believe that many Opposition Members find the talk, talk and talk again tactics as bewildering as we do. It is one of the few examples of an Opposition Front Bench team setting out to demoralise the Government and succeeding only in demoralising its own side.

The Bill is important in two respects. It introduces private capital into two major nationalised industries—the subsidiary companies of British Rail and the British Transport Docks Board. The need in British Rail is urgent. Over the past quarter of a century its subsidiaries, such as the hotel business, have been starved of investment. Neither the unions nor the board dispute that. The Government are tackling the problems. As the chairman of British Rail said, to take no action is not an option. After careful discussion with British Rail, we have reached agreement on how private capital can be introduced. The Government are taking action so that the businesses can develop with the opportunities that the private sector will give them. That is good for the businesses, for those working in them and for the public.

The other major theme of the Bill is road safety. The right hon. Member for Norwich, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said that the Bill should go further. However, the Government are taking the first major action in this field for many years. Unlike the Labour Government, we are not merely talking. We are taking action on two of the gravest road safety problems—motor cycle safety and drink-driving. We are reforming the motoring offences system. Even those who believe that we should go further do not oppose the steps that we are taking. If the Opposition's tactics succeed, those advances will be at risk.

The Government are taking action in two areas where problems have been ignored for far too long—industrial development and jobs, and road safety. The Bill is overwhelmingly in the public interest. I call upon the House to vote for the motion.

Mr. Cowans

Here is a practical example of the Government asking for the guillotine. I serve on the Committee. Here is even the Secretary of State—

Mr. Moate

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

I believe that in any case the time is up. I am now told not and that we have one more minute.

Mr. Moate

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) has already caught your predecessor's eye.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) has already spoken.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry, North-West)

I am grateful for the one minute to refute the charge that has been laid at my door—that I was responsible for taking up time and filibustering. It was only when the Government did not agree with a proposal, having agreed in the morning—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion,Ms.. SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 44 (Allocation of time to Bills).

Question put accordingly.

The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 235.

Division No. 97]	[7.10 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Carlisle, Rt Hon M. R'c'n)
Aitken, Jonathan	Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Alexander, Richard	Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Alison, Michael	Chapman, Sydney
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Clark, Hon A. Plym'th, S'n)
Ancrarn, Michael	Clark, Sir W.CroydonS)
Arnold, Tom	Clarke, Kenneth Rushcliffe)
Aspinwall, Jack	Cockeram, Eric
Atkins, Rt Hon H.S'thorne)	Colvin, Michael
Atkins, Robert PrestonN)	Cope,John
Baker, Kenneth St.M'bone)	Cormack, Patrick
Baker, Nicholas N Dorset)	Corrie, John
Banks, Robert	Costain, Sir Albert
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Critchley, Julian
Bell, Sir Ronald	Crouch, David
Bendall, Vivian	Dean, Paul North Somerset)
Benyon, Thomas A 'don)	Dickens, Geoff rey
Benyon, W.Buckingham)	Dorrell, Stephen
Best, Keith	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Bevan, David Gilroy	Dover, Denshore
Biffen, Rt Hon John	du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Biggs-Davison, John	Dunn, Robert Dartford)
Blackburn, John	Durant, Tony
Blaker, Peter	Dykes, Hugh
Bonsor,Sir Nicholas	Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Edwards, Rt Hon N. P'broke)
Bottomley, Peter W'wichW)	Eggar, Tim
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Emery, Peter
Braine, Sir Bernard	Fairbairn, Nicholas
Bright, Graham	Fairgrieve, Russell
Brinton, Tim	Faith, Mrs Sheila
Brittan, Leon	Farr, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Fell, Anthony
Brooke, Hon Peter	Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Brotherton, Michael	Finsberg, Geoffrey
Brown, Michael Brigg & Sc'n)	Fisher, Sir Nigel
Browne,John Winchester)	Fletcher, A. Ed'nb'ghN)
Bruce-Gardyne, John	Fookes, Miss Janet
Buck, Antony	Forman, Nigel
Budgen, Nick	Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Bulmer, Esmond	Fox, Marcus
Burden, Sir Frederick	Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Butcher, John	Fraser, Peter South Angus)
Butler, Hon Adam	Fry, Peter
Cadbury, Jocelyn	Gardiner, George Reigate)
Carlisle,John Luton West)	Gardner, Edward SFylde)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Garel-Jones, Tristan

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Marten,NeiI (Banbury)
Glyn, Dr Alan	Mates, Michael
Goodhart, Philip	Mather, Carol
Goodlad, Alastair	Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Gorst, John	Mawby, Ray
Gow, Ian	Mawhinney, DrBrian
Gower, SirRaymond	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)	Mayhew, Patrick
Gray, Hamish	Mellor, David
Greenway, Harry	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Grieve, Percy	Mills, lain(Meriden)
Griffiths, E.(B'ySt.Edm'ds)	Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'thN)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Grist, Ian	Moate, Roger
Grylls, Michael	Monro, Hector
Gummer, JohnSelwyn	Montgomery, Fergus
Hamilton, HonA.	Moore, John
Hamilton, Michael(Sallisbury)	Morrison, HonC. (Devizes)
Hampson, DrKeith	Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Hannam, John	Mudd, David
Haselhurst, Alan	Murphy, Christopher
Hastings, Stephen	Myles, David
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael	Neale, Gerrard
Hawkins, Paul	Needham, Richard
Hawksley, Warren	Nelson, Anthony
Hayhoe, Barney	Neubert, Michael
Heddle, John	Newton, Tony
Henderson, Barry	Normanton, Tom
Hicks, Robert	Nott, Rt Hon John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Onslow, Cranley
Hill, James	Oppenheim, Rt Hon MrsS.
Hogg, Hon Doug las(Gr'th'm)	Osborn, John
Holland,Philip(Carlon)	Page, John (Harrow, West)
Hooson, Tom	Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Hordern, Peter	Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Parkinson, Cecil
Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)	Parris, Matthew
Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)	Patten, Christopher(Bath)
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Patten, John(Oxford)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Pattie, Geoffrey
Hurd, Hon Douglas	Pawsey, James
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)	Percival, Sirlan
Jenkin,Rt Hon Patrick	Peyton, Rt Hon John
JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey	Pollock, Alexander
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Porter, Barry
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Kaberry, SirDonald	Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine	Prior, Rt Hon James
Kershaw, Anthony	Proctor, K.Harvey
Kilfedder, James A.	Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Kimball, Marcus	Raison,Timothy
Kitson, SirTimothy	Rathbone, Tim
Knight, MrsJill	Rees, Peter (Doverand Deal)
Knox, David	Renton, Tim
Lamont, Norman	Rhodes, James, Robert
Lang, Ian	RhysWilliams, SirBrandon
Langford-Holt.SirJohn	Ridley, HonNicholas
Latham, Michael	Ridsdale, Julian
Lawrence, Ivan	Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel	Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Lennox-Boyd, HonMark	Roberts, Wyn (Con way)
Lester Jim (Beeston)	Rossi, Hugh
Lewis, Kenneth(Rutland)	Rost, Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Royle, Sir Anthony
Loveridge, John	Sainsbury, HonTimothy
Luce, Richard	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Lyell, Nicholas	Scott, Nicholas
McCrindle, Robert	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Macfarlane, Neil	Shaw, Michael(Scanborough)
MacGregor, John	Shelton, William(Streatham)
MacKay, John (Argyll)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Macmillan, Rt HonM.	Shepherd, Richard
McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)	Shersby, Michael
McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)	Silvester, Fred
McQuarrie, Albert	Sims, Roger
Madel, David	Skeet, T. H. H.
Major, John	Smith, Dudley
Marland, Paul	Speed, Keith
Marlow, Tony	Speller, Tony
MarshalI Michael(Arundel)	Spence, John

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)	Wakeham, John
Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)	Waldegrave, Hon William
Sproat, lain	Walker, B. (Perth)
Squire, Robin	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Stainton,Keith	Wall, Patrick
Stanbrook, lvor	Waller, Gary
Stanley, John	Walters, Dennis
Stevens, Martin	Ward, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)	Warren, Kenneth
Stewart, A.(ERenfrewshire)	Watson, John
Stokes, John	Wells, John(Maidstone)
Stradling Thomas, J.	Wells, Bowen
Tapsell, Peter	Wheeler, John
Taylor, Robert (CroydonNW)	Whitelaw, RtHon William
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)	Whitney, Raymond
Tebbit, Norman	Wickenden, Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter	Wiggin, Jerry
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.	Wilkinson, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter	Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Thompson, Donald	Winterton, Nicholas
Townend, John(Bridlinton)	Wolfson, Mark
Townsend, CyrilD,('B'hearth)	Younger, Rt Hon George
Trippier,David
van Straubenzee, W. R.	Tellers for the Ayes:
Vaughan, DrGerard	Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
Viggers, Peter	Mr. Anthony Berry.
Waddington, David
NOES
Abse, Leo	Dixon, Donald
Adams, Allen	Dobson, Frank
Allaun, Frank	Dormand, Jack
Alton, David	Douglas, Dick
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Dubs, Alfred
Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)	Dunnett, Jack
Bagier, Gordon A.T.	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Barnett, Guy(Greenwich)	Eadie, Alex
Beith, A. J.	Eastham, Ken
Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood	Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Bennett, Andrew(St'Kp'tN)	Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)
Bidwell, Sydney	English, Michael
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Ennals, Rt Hon David
Bottomley, Rt HonA.(M'b'ro)	Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Bradley, Tom	Evans, John (Newton)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Ewing, Harry
Brown, Hugh D.(Provan)	Field, Frank
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)	Fitt, Gerard
Brown, Ron(E'burgh,Leith)	Flannery, Martin
Brown, Ronald W.(H'ckn'yS)	Fletcher,Ted (Darlington)
Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n&P)	Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Campbell,Ian	Ford, Ben
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Forrester, John
Canavan, Dennis	Foster, Derek
Cant, R. B.	Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Carmichael, Neil	Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Garrett, John(Norwich S)
Cartwright, John	Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Clark, DrDavid (SShields)	George, Bruce
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stolS)	Ginsburg, David
Cohen, Stanley	Golding, John
Coleman, Donald	Gourlay, Harry
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.	Graham, Ted
Conlan, Bernard	Grant, John (Islington C)
Cook, Robin F.	Grimond, RtHon J.
Cowans, Harry	Hamilton, James(Bothwell)
Cox,T.(W'dsw'th,Toot'g)	Hamilton, W.W.(C'tralFife)
Crawshaw, Richard	Hardy, Peter
Crowther, J.S.	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Cryer, Bob	Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Haynes, Frank
Cunningham,G.(lslingtonS)	Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Davidson, Arthur	Heffer, Eric S.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)	Hogg, N.(EDunb'fnshire)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	HomeRobertson, John
Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)	Homewood, William
Davis, T. (B'ham,Stechf'd)	Hooley, Frank
Deakins, Eric	Howell, Rt Hon D.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Huckfield, Les
Dewar, Donald	Hughes, Mark(Durham)

Hughes, Robert (AberdeenN)	Radice, Giles
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Janner, Hon Greville	Richardson, Jo
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Roberts,Albert (Normanton)
John, Brynmor	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Johnson, James (Hull West)	Roberts, Ernest (HackneyN)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Rooker, J. W.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Roper, John
Kerr, Russell	Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Kinnock, Neil	Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Lambie, David	Rowlands, Ted
Lamond, James	Ryman, John
Leighton, Ronald	Sandelson, Neville
Lestor, MissJoan	Sever, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Sheerman, Barry
Litherland, Robert	Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Lofthouse, Geoff rey	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Lyon, Alexander (York)	Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
McCusker, H.	Silverman, Julius
McDonald, DrOonagh	Smith, Rt Hon J. (NLanark)
McElhone, Frank	Snape, Peter
McKelvey, William	Soley, Clive
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor	Spearing, Nigel
Maclennan, Robert	Spriggs, Leslie
McNally, Thomas	Stallard, A. W.
McNamara, Kevin	Steel, Rt Hon David
McTaggart, Robert	Stewart, Rt Hon D. (WIsles)
McWilliam, John	Stoddart, David
Magee, Bryan	Stott, Roger
Marks, Kenneth	Strang, Gavin
Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)	Straw, Jack
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Marshall,Jim (LeicesterS)	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Martin, M (G'gowS'burn)	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy	Tbomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Maynard, Miss Joan	Thomas, Mike (NewcastleE)
Meacher, Michael	Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert	Tilley, John
Mikardo, lan	Tinn, James
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Torney, Tom
Miller, Dr M. S. (EKilbride)	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)	Wainwright, E. (DearneV)
Mitchell, R.C. (Soton ltchen)	Wainwright, R. (ColneV)
Molyneaux, James	Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)	Watkins, David
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)	Weetch, Ken
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Wellbeloved, James
Morton, George	Welsh, Michael
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland	White, Frank R.
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick	Whitehead, Phillip
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Whitlock, William
Ogden, Eric	Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)
O'Halloran, Michael	Williams,Sir T.(W'ton)
O'Neill, Martin	Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Wilson, William (C'trySE)
Palmer, Arthur	Winnick, David
Park, George	Woodall, Alec
Parker, John	Woolmer, Kenneth
Pavitt, Laurie	Wrigglesworth, lan
Pendry, Tom	Young, David (Bolton E)
Penhaligon, David
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (SDown)	Tellers for the Noes:
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)	Mr. Hugh McCartney and
Prescott, John	Mr. Allen McKay.
Race, Reg

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 31 March 1981.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after midnight on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee Reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

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

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to vary the order in which the Bill is, by virtue of the Resolution of the Standing Committee of 22 January, to be considered by the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may vary that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

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

Dilatory motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

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

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

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of three hours.

Private Business

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

Conclusion of proceedings

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

1. (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
2. (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
3. (c) the Question on any Amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that Amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;
4. (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
• and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

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

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

1. (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
2. (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill, which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

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

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

1. (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
2. (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

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

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

Interpretation

13. In this Order— 'allotted day' means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day; 'the Bill' means the Transport Bill; 'Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee' means a resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Committee; 'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.