HC Deb 25 October 1989 vol 158 cc965-96
Mr. Redwood

I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 204, line 2, leave out 'nominal value' and insert `appropriate amount in respect'.

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 14 and 15.

Mr. Redwood

The amendments fine-tune the provisions in schedule 2, which prescribe rules derived from the seventh directive for the accounting treatment of mergers and acquisitions. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are brought forward in response to a point made in Committee by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett); they make a technical change to the provisions on merger accounting to ensure that present accounting practice can continue. Amendment No. 15 makes it clear how the rules on accounting for mergers and acquisitions apply when a group of companies is acquired—that is, a parent company and its subsidiary undertakings.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 24.

Division No. 348] [11.36 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard Bowis, John
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Brazier, Julian
Amess, David Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Amos, Alan Buck, Sir Antony
Arbuthnot, James Burns, Simon
Ashby, David Burl, Alistair
Atkinson, David Butterfill, John
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Batiste, Spencer Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Beith, A. J. Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Bellingham, Henry Carrington, Matthew
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Carttiss, Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John Cash, William
Boswell, Tim Chapman, Sydney
Chope, Christopher Knowles, Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Lang, Ian
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Latham, Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Lilley, Peter
Cran, James Livsey, Richard
Curry, David Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Davis, David (Boothferry) Maclean, David
Devlin, Tim McLoughlin, Patrick
Dorrell, Stephen Mans, Keith
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Dover, Den Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Dunn, Bob Meyer, Sir Anthony
Durant, Tony Mills, Iain
Evennett, David Nicholls, Patrick
Fallon, Michael Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Favell, Tony Norris, Steve
Fearn, Ronald Redwood, John
Fishburn, John Dudley Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Forman, Nigel Sackville, Hon Tom
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Forth, Eric Shaw, David (Dover)
Freeman, Roger Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Gale, Roger Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Garel-Jones, Tristan Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Glyn, Dr Alan Soames, Hon Nicholas
Goodlad, Alastair Speller, Tony
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles Stevens, Lewis
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Hague, William Summerson, Hugo
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Hanley, Jeremy Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Harris, David Thorne, Neil
Hayward, Robert Thurnham, Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, David Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Hind, Kenneth Tracey, Richard
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) Twinn, Dr Ian
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Waddington, Rt Hon David
Howells, Geraint Wallace, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) Ward, John
Hunt, David (Wirral W) Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne) Warren, Kenneth
Hunter, Andrew Watts, John
Irvine, Michael Wheeler, John
Jack, Michael Widdecombe, Ann
Janman, Tim Wood. Timothy
Jessel, Toby
Kirkwood, Archy Tellers for the Ayes:
Knapman, Roger Mr. Irvine Patnick and Mr. John M. Taylor.
Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
NOES
Buckley, George J. Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) Mahon, Mrs Alice
Cousins, Jim Nellist, Dave
Cryer, Bob Pike, Peter L.
Cummings, John Salmond, Alex
Cunliffe, Lawrence Skinner, Dennis
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Vaz, Keith
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Flynn, Paul Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Godman, Dr Norman A. Wilson, Brian
Golding, Mrs Llin
Haynes, Frank Tellers for the Noes:
Hinchliffe, David Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Eric Illsley.
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 14, in page 204, line 12, leave out from 'means' to end of line 14 and insert—

'—

  1. (a) shares in relation to which section 131 (merger relief) applies, in respect of which the appropriate amount is the nominal value; or
  2. (b) shares in relation to which section 132 (relief in respect of group reconstructions) applies, in respect of which the appropriate amount is the nominal 967 value together with any minimum premium value within the meaning of that section.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

Question put,That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 25.

Division No. 349] [11.49 pm
AYES
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Amess, David Hunter, Andrew
Amos, Alan Irvine, Michael
Arbuthnot, James Jack, Michael
Ashby, David Janman, Tim
Atkinson, David Jessel, Toby
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Kirkwood, Archy
Batiste, Spencer Knapman, Roger
Bellingham, Henry Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Biffen, Rt Hon John Knowles, Michael
Boswell, Tim Lang, Ian
Bowis, John Latham, Michael
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) Lilley, Peter
Buck, Sir Antony Livsey, Richard
Burns, Simon Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Burt, Alistair Maclean, David
Butterfill, John McLoughlin, Patrick
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) Mans, Keith
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Carrington, Matthew Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Carttiss, Michael Meyer, Sir Anthony
Cash, William Mills, Iain
Chope, Christopher Nicholls, Patrick
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Norris, Steve
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) Patnick, Irvine
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Redwood, John
Cran, James Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Curry, David Sackville, Hon Tom
Davis, David (Boothferry) Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Devlin, Tim Shaw, David (Dover)
Dorrell, Stephen Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Dover, Den Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Dunn, Bob Soames, Hon Nicholas
Durant, Tony Speller, Tony
Evennett, David Stevens, Lewis
Favell, Tony Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Fishburn, John Dudley Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Forman, Nigel Summerson, Hugo
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Forth, Eric Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Freeman, Roger Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Gale, Roger Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Garel-Jones, Tristan Thorne, Neil
Glyn, Dr Alan Thurnham, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles Tracey, Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) Twinn, Dr Ian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn Waddington, Rt Hon David
Hague, William Wallace, James
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) Ward, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Hanley, Jeremy Warren, Kenneth
Harris, David Watts, John
Hayward, Robert Wheeler, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David Widdecombe, Ann
Hind, Kenneth Wood, Timothy
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Tellers for the Ayes:
Howells, Geraint Mr. Michael Fallon and
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) Mr. Sydney Chapman.
Hunt, David (Wirral W)
NOES
Buckley, George J. Cunliffe, Lawrence
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) Dixon, Don
Campbell-Savours, D. N. Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Cousins, Jim Flynn, Paul
Cryer, Bob Golding, Mrs Llin
Cummings, John Haynes, Frank
Hinchliffe, David Vaz, Keith
Hughes, John (Coventry NE) Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Mahon, Mrs Alice Wray, Jimmy
Meale, Alan
Nellist, Dave Tellers for the Noes:
Pike, Peter L. Mr. Harry Barnes and
Skinner, Dennis Mr. Eric Illsley.
Spearing, Nigel

Question accordingly agreed to.

12 midnight

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.

With permission I shall couple that with a short statement about changes in the business announced for this week:

That should provide for the House time to consider the Bills that are now before it, which I have identified, comparable in scale to the time visualised in the arrangements made through the usual channels and will ensure that the business is handled expeditiously in the remainder of the week.

Mr. Cryer

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House has used the opportunity of moving the adjournment of the debate to make a business statement. Surely it would be the proper procedure to have questions on the business statement, as is the usual case, to disentangle the business statement from the justification for moving the adjournment of the present Bill. The Leader of the House did not actually move the adjournment of the debate. Therefore, I believe that we should be given the opportunity to ask business questions about the guillotine motions.

Madam Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman knows, and I should remind the House, that the motion is debatable.

Mr. Skinner

In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) I want to object as this is the first time that I have heard a Leader of the House move the adjournment of a debate and, at the same time, indicate a change in the business by introducing a guillotine.

I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is new to the job, that he has not been around a great deal and that he has a lot of trouble with the Prime Minister. He should explain, however, where in "Erskine May" this practice is allowed. I note that the Clerk is having a word with Madam Deputy Speaker and I suppose that he is trying to square it for the Leader of the House.

This is an indication of the way in which the Government have got their business into a shambles [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I must hear the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Skinner

Here we have a Government with a 150 majority——

Hon. Members

At the next election.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order.

Mr. Skinner

If I can just correct the lager louts who have come straight from the Bar—mind you, it is not only lager.

The Government have a majority over the Labour party of approximately 150 hon. Members. I do not count the rag, tag and bobtails. I just subtract the number of Labour Members from the number of Conservatives because tonight, for example, the Liberals—or whatever they call themselves—have not been voting with us; they have been voting with the Government. That means that the Government majority has been even greater than 150. So the Government have a majority of 150 over the Labour party, but in the Lobbies, on the last two or three votes, the Government have been able to muster only 120-odd hon. Members—and that includes my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) who, on occasions, goes into the Tory Lobby to try to confuse them—at least, that is what he tells me.

We have a Government with a massive majority but at the fag end of a Session they cannot get 150 hon. Members into the Lobby to get their business through. It is not the job of a Labour Opposition to get more than 20 or 30 hon. Members in our Lobby. It is the job of the Labour Opposition to make sure that we occupy Government time, especially when the Government are up against the wall at the end of a parliamentary Session. It is indicative of this state of affairs that the Leader of the House had had to come to the House to introduce two guillotine motions at five past 12 in the morning for two Bills, each of which has several hundred amendments. There is something wrong with a Government who have two Bills—with 400 amendments on one, and about 800 on the other—who do not know whether they are on this earth or Fullers. That shows not only that the Government are in a shambles, but that the Cabinet are beginning to lose their grip on the House——

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to contemplate the fact that in another place the Government have introduced more than 400 amendments to the Local Government and Housing Bill which at some time will no doubt have to come back to this House.

Mr. Skinner

What can you expect? On the one hand, the Prime Minister is gallivanting around the world. She does not know what is happening in this place. She just flits in, has a photo opportunity outside, and is then off to Japan and Kuala Lumpur. She is falling out with the Commonwealth, and the Front Bench are getting the business cocked up. What does the hon. Gentleman expect? I am not surprised that the Government are in this shambles, but I should like to know what will happen when she comes back. I should like to be a fly on the wall at the Cabinet meeting tomorrow morning when she says, "What the hell's going on? I've been holding things up out there in Kuala Lumpur against 48 other Ministers, but this lot have been allowing 20-odd Labour members to run rings round the Government and keep the House sitting until the middle of the night, losing Bills left right and centre."

Mr. Campbell-Savours

The Prime Minister has sacked the Leader of the House once.

Mr. Skinner

Yes, she did sack him—and she took his house off him and gave it to the Foreign Secretary, a man with some kids; then the Leader of the House complained because he wanted a mansion, so she kicked the Chancellor of the Exchequer out of his house—he has kids—and put in a man without any kids. The Government really have got themselves into a mess in the past few months.

So I am pleased that Labour is 26 points ahead in the polls. All this disarray started when I became chairman of the Labour party. We were six points behind in the polls when I took over the chairmanship at the back end of 1988 and by the time I have finished we are 26 points in front. Some people are suggesting that I should carry on, but I do not believe in patronage. I believe in the system of elections. I have done my stint and am happy to look at the Government Front Bench—incidentally, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is now here. He had the job of selling water privatisation and the poll tax. According to all the communiqués from Bernard Ingham——

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman makes amusing speeches, but I am sure that he will keep to the terms of the motion before us.

Mr. Skinner

I am trying to say that the Government have lost their way. They had the reshuffle to try to present a different image, so they shifted the right hon. Gentleman to the Department of Trade and Industry. He could not sell water privatisation and the poll tax, and now he has to sell £20 billion worth of goods abroad. That shows the disarray in the Cabinet.

Yesterday, the Chancellor spoke, and about two Cabinet Ministers turned up to hear him. Is it any wonder that Members were saying in the Lobbies tonight that they would not stop here to carry the Companies Bill through? If Ministers, they said, did not turn up for major debates, why should they turn up and vote for them in the Lobbies? That shows that the Government are now at the tether end.

I hope that we shall have the opportunity to vote against the guillotine tomorrow, to show that we are going to fight the Government to the bitter end. I hope, too, that the Government will have the sense to pull off the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that that is not part of the motion, to which I refer him.

Mr. Skinner

The Leader of the House made a business statement, and if I had asked him a question—as opposed to taking part in this debate—I would have told him that now that he is changing the business for Thursday and Friday I could legitimately ask him to get rid of that so-called private Bill. It is a political Bill which will allow 15 million tonnes of coal to be imported to Britain at a time when we have a £20 billion balance of payments problem.

It is legitimate to say this in this debate because it is partly a business motion. The private Bill should be withdrawn. It is just conceivable—although I cannot guarantee it—that if the Bill is withdrawn, we might get to the end of the parliamentary Session with less fuss and bother. If 15 million tonnes of coal are to be brought here through these ports, they will add to the massive balance of payments problem.

I suggest that, in these last few weeks of the Session, the Leader of the House consult Back Benchers, as the last Leader of the House did. He met us in July in the Leader's room. We had a nice little discussion about the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. It is important that other hon. Members know that. The Government decided to take the Bill off in July, using various methods of getting rid of it. It is legitimate to suggest that the new Leader of the House get rid of it altogether. Why should there be a carry-over motion for the Bill? It was flawed. Not only did the Chairman——

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I have called the hon. Gentleman to order now on more than one occasion. He knows our procedures. I refer him to our Standing Orders—to Standing Order No. 33, to be precise, which lays down that he can debate only what is in the motion before us. The hon. Gentleman is a clever parliamentarian, and I hope that he will now return to the motion.

Mr. Skinner

As I said earlier, that would have applied had the Leader of the House only moved the adjournment of the debate. But he did not. He came here with a hybrid motion which included a business statement and a motion to adjourn proceedings on the Companies Bill. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the authorities in the House, heard it all. It was a remarkable proposition——

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. Certainly the procedure on the two Bills to which the Leader of the House referred are open for debate.

Mr. Skinner

Of course they are. When the Leader of the House makes a business statement, anyone can stand up and, if called by the Speaker, ask why certain other matters should not be dealt with in the statement. It is legitimate for any hon. Member to raise any subject he or she likes. I am saying that, in view of the two guillotines that are being proposed, the Leader of the House should follow the example of his predecessor—the present Secretary of State for Energy—and consider the proposition that we should get rid of that Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill so that we can proceed.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I have referred the hon. Gentleman to our Standing Orders. I refer him to Standing Order No. 33, which is very germane to this debate. He can of course refer to the business that the Leader of the House has referred to, which are the two Bills, the Companies Bill and the Children Bill.

12.15 am
Mr. Skinner

As a matter of fact, the Children Bill, although it has been referred to, was not a matter for us. I came in here last night and listened to a very good debate on that Bill. About 10 hon. Members on both sides of the House took part. There were several of my hon. Friends who had served on the Standing Committee, and two or three Tories joined in. One or two Tories made comments on points of order today, but they had gone to bed, so they did not know what had happened.

A lot of Opposition Members are quite happy with the Children Bill and how it is being dealt with. We do not believe in guillotines and would much prefer it if it were dealt with properly, but nobody should assume that we can lump the Children Bill and the Companies Bill together. The Companies Bill is all about fraud and how to tighten up on it.

I said earlier that we ought to be discussing the fraud involving Ferranti. Now that we are to have a guillotine on the debate on the Companies Bill, it is conceivable that some of my hon. Friends will not have an opportunity to talk about the massive fraud that has taken place. We shall not be able to talk about that company of which Edward du Cann was a non-executive director.

Mr. Cryer

Tell us what happened.

Mr. Skinner

He ran away. Just before a certain housing company went to the wall, Edward du Cann decided to pack in as a non-executive director saying, "I think there is summat smelly here. I've been taking the money all this time, but now it looks as if it is going down the pan, I am getting out of the way."

If debates on the Companies Bill were not guillotined, it would be a good idea for hon. Members to talk about that issue. Why can non-executive directors leave firms in a hurry like that and leave someone else holding the baby, because that is roughly what happened?

I do not think that we shall be able to discuss the Ferranti issue properly if there is a guillotine. Ferranti got into bed with this company called ISC and a fellow called James Guerin. He was a funny sort of fellow. They could not find him for a while. It is known that, by and large, Ferranti gets its money from the British taxpayer because it has large defence contracts. The auditors' inspection of the books could have been debated in the debate on the Companies Bill if there had not been a guillotine. The auditors obviously did not know what they were doing. The Companies Bill is designed to get auditors to look at these things properly.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

What happened?

Mr. Skinner

With Ferranti, the auditors examined the company and said, "Oh, it's all right. You can join forces with ISC. They are clean." It turned out that ISC was guilty of about a £200 million fraud. Imagine if it had been someone on social security. There are people in Britain who are locked up in gaol because they have been found guilty of a minor social security fraud, yet somehow the fraud squad has not got round to dealing properly with this matter.

If there is a guillotine, it will be difficult to deal with issues concerning fraud in the City and elsewhere. That is why I think that some of my hon. Friends may want to speak in this short debate—they may want to reveal some of the details before the guillotine falls tomorrow.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

What about clause 72?

Mr. Skinner

Indeed. There is just a chance that, under the guillotine, debate on clause 72 will not be reached. The chopper will fall.

The Government have run out of steam and the Cabinet is in total disarray. At the end of the Session the Government have piled up 400 amendments to the Children Bill and 800 amendments to the Companies Bill. They have lost their way. They cannot keep their troops here at night. They were down to 120 hon. Members at 12 o'clock and that is the sign of a Government in retreat. I am pleased about that, but people outside the House should know. For those reasons I hope that——

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Has my hon. Friend seen clause 67 which deals with investigations into insider dealing? The debate may be curtailed on that matter.

Mr. Skinner

We may not be able to deal with that so perhaps we should mention it now. Is that clause about Alan Walters? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he is the man doing the insider dealing at No. 10. The Chancellor has a connecting door to No. 10, but he cannot get in because Alan Walters has locked it. We should be able to discuss such matters, but we will probably not be able to because of the guillotine motion.

We will not be able to deal with Guinness. However, to be fair, the Guinness issue is now before the courts and is what we call in Latin, sub judice. Therefore, I will not discuss it now. However, as I have said, we will not be able to discuss Alan Walters, his position on the EMS and his role in the conflict between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I do not know who will go first, the Prime Minister or the Chancellor. I know that many of my hon. Friends do not agree with my view, but I have money on the fact that the Prime Minister will not lead the Tory party in the next general election. Some people laughed at me when I said that on the radio 12 months ago. However, as a result of the problems with Alan Walters, the insider-dealing man, more people think it is a decent bet. They are asking me to lay off some of my money so that they can get a slice of it. It is a toss up who will go first.

There are people within the Establishment who would like an extended debate on the Companies Bill. Those people are now saying that it is time for the Prime Minister to go. We have only to read some of the posh newspapers to see that. They are suggesting that the Prime Minister is at the tether end of her term of office. My guess is that the Prime Minister might suffer a diplomatic illness during the next parliamentary Session and that will be the end of it. If that happens, in will come the Leader of the House. He will not be moving guillotine motions then because he will be hoping that somebody else will do that for him. However, there is another bloke in the running, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). We cannot rule out the possibility of a ballot in November. Traditionally, the Tory party can have a ballot in November but we do not get a vote.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman once again that he must make his comments germane to the motion before us. He is straying far from that now.

Mr. Skinner

I was trying to say that if more Tory Members had turned up tonight, including the right hon. Member for Henley, the Leader of the House would not have been placed in this predicament. Many Cabinet Ministers have left the sinking ship as have many of the junior Ministers who usually turn up. In any other part of the parliamentary year the Division bells are rung, the Whips get on the telephone and all the junior Ministers and Cabinet Ministers turn up. They have not turned up tonight because they think that it is the beginning of the end. If all those people had turned up, the Leader of the House would not have had to move the guillotine motion because there would have been no need for it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I do not understand why.

Mr. Skinner

There would have been 250 or 300 Tory Members in the Lobby and some Opposition Members—not me—may have felt a little cowed by the massive majorities piling up against us. My hon. Friend knows that when we came into the Chamber after the Division we heard that the Government had started with 190 and that it had come down to 183. In the next Division it came down to 160. That makes us feel buoyed and confident because we know that we are on a winning streak.

The Government got into such a sorry state that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) bailed them out in a Division by voting with them. The Liberals or whatever they call themselves also voted with them. When we see that, it becomes clear that the Leader of the House has got a telephone call from somebody who said to him, "Hey up, Geoff, we are losing our troops. There is a gang of Labour MPs, one of whom has voted with us, causing trouble. They are acting like an Opposition." The Leader of the House is brought in and has to cobble together a guillotine motion on the Companies Bill and the Children Bill in order to get them through.

The Government started the Session last October and have a massive majority of about three or four to one in the House of Lords—when they can get the Lords to work. Some of them turn up and pick up £100 a day tax free straight away. Even with that massive majority the Government cannot organise their business. The ship is beginning to sink. When I reflect upon events in the House yesterday and especially those of today, I begin to understand the opinion polls. I can understand why Labour has 48 or 49 per cent. and the Conservatives are down to 36 or 37 per cent.

That is easy to understand when we remember that the Government are taking on the ambulance crews. That is wicked and shows that the Government are losing their touch. They should pay those people the kind of money they deserve. In our society top company directors have had 26 per cent. increases in the last 12 months, but the ambulance crews are being offered only 6.5 per cent.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is about to bring his remarks to a conclusion.

Mr. Skinner

The reason for the Government losing their touch is an amalgam of all those things. They are losing their MPs in the middle of the night and are unable to hold them. When the Conservatives are down to 120 hon. Members at 12 o'clock it means trouble. Everybody knows that, and that is why the Leader of the House is here. He is not here because of any filibuster. I have not heard any filibuster. We have been voting legitimately on matters pertaining to the Bill.

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the 999 service is working tonight because it looks as if we might have two casualties in the House.

Mr. Skinner

I do not know whether to continue. I can understand the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) dropping off to sleep. He got sacked in the big shuffle. He probably thought, "Why should I bother?" and went to sleep. He could have stayed away altogether.

Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East)

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend in mid flow. Does he agree that hon. Members in all parts of the House who served diligently on the Standing Committee on the Children Bill—hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) and I—were concerned when we heard from the Leader of the House that the Bill is to be guillotined? Does he accept that the Bill is a consensus matter and that Members from all parties sought negotiations and amendments to make sure that it went through? Does he also agree that people outside who have been waiting for many years for that legislation will be deeply offended at the decision to guillotine this important measure?

Mr. Skinner

Only today Tory Members were weeping about how we did not make as much progress as they wanted to last night, when my hon. Friends were complaining about the licensing and inspection charges on pre-school playgroups, and we had some healthy debates. It is strange that the Government will now introduce a guillotine to stop my hon. Friends from speaking about these matters.

We can regard this little episode of the Leader of the House being dragged here as healthy for us. The Government have lost their troops. The Cabinet do not know which way to turn. The monetarist philosophy is in ruins. The Government are intervening at every possible stage. The Labour party is much more confident. The rag, tag and bobtail party does not matter any more. I think that we shall look back on this night, when the Government caved in at the tail end of the Session, as indicative of a Government on their last legs. I look forward to the end of them.

12.30 am
Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

I have some brief questions for my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. We all welcome the motion because it is clear that hon. Members are far too tired, after a busy day, to consider this important Bill. It would be an outrage if people were not to hear about the important work that we are doing on the Companies Bill.

Does the motion moved by my right hon. and learned Friend mean that we shall stop now, or does it mean that we shall stop talking about the Companies Bill, and go on to talk about the merchant shipping order? It would be an outrage if we followed the second route. The order overturns a proposal that, last year, both the Minister in charge and his Parliamentary Private Secretary said was vital for the future of British shipping. Surely we will not stop debating the Companies Bill as a result of the closure motion, and then have to talk about the order.

Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will be aware that if we are to do our job properly we need to have parliamentary papers. Through the good offices of Mr. Speaker, and nobody else, we got an assurance that papers would be provided in the Vote Office, outlining the judgment of the European court. Hon. Members who have it will see that unfortunately—probably because of the speed with which it was produced—a page is missing. That page could be provided if the debate were delayed. The page shows that the document did not reach the Treasury solicitors until 18 October, which happens by chance to be the day after was presented to the House of Commons, and it was printed in the Order Paper that these items were available in the Treasury Solicitor's office. That is unusual.

The third reason why we should not hurry with this order is that, as my right hon. and learned Friend, with his long experience of the EEC will be aware, if we vote for this order, which will allow foreign ships to be British ships as from now, it will apply only to Britain. This order does not apply to other countries. When we have all this work to do, and people want to hear about the work that we are doing, it would be an outrage to rush through, at great speed and at a late hour when no one will hear, something that will apply only to us.

The treaty of Rome, of which I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend is well aware, says that all countries should be treated equally. Why the blazes, at half past 12 at night, we have to debate this, I do not know. Sadly, we deal with controversial, horrible, nasty and undemocratic matters about which people do not hear at 1, 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning.

I support the motion, but I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will say that we are too tired to do important work and that it is an outrage that the debate should take place at this hour. Surely my right hon. and learned Friend will be the great democrat and protector of liberty that I know he is. I trust that he will say that we can defer for a few days something that will overturn and wreck a measure which only last year was recognised by Ministers and Back Benchers as crucial and vital if we were to support British fishermen. Let us not be dirty to our fishermen at 12.30 am. Let us stand firm by democracy. Let us for once have a real debate on a vital issue in prime time.

Mr. Cryer

I cannot recall an announcement by a Leader of the House that sought, in effect, to move progress and, at the same time, to announce a business statement. Such a move shows the contempt that the Government have for the House. Why were not the rights of hon. Members protected by an announcement being made on the screens throughout the House that a business statement was to be made? It is a convention of the House that when a business statement is made and changes are to be announced Members have right of access to the Chamber so that they can ask questions about the statement. It is a long hallowed tradition that Members should be given the opportunity to raise pressing issues that concern them that they believe should take priority over the changes to business that the Leader of the House has made. No opportunity has been given to those hon. Members who are working in their offices to come to the Chamber to express their points of view. I would judge that the annunciator operators have merely been presented with an announcement that there is to be a debate on the adjournment of progress on the Companies Bill. That means that the traditional position of Back Benchers has been deliberately undermined by the Government not announcing a business statement.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I invite my hon. Friend to clarify his language. He has referred to a tradition, and a tradition in this place is often regarded by those outside as unnecessary and a delaying tactic. Is it not a good democratic practice that when a business statement is to be made notice is given, if only for a few minutes, so that those who wish to ask a question about the change in the business arrangements can do so? Perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to tell me—he may have been in the Chamber at the time—whether the Leader of the House, in announcing that there would be a timetable motion on Friday, stated that there would be an extended sitting. That would be within the Government's rights but it is a sign of distress. I understand that a guillotine motion would continue to be debated for three hours at the conclusion of the debate on the Football Spectators Bill on Friday.

Mr. Cryer

There will be guillotine motions on Thursday 26 October, which is tomorrow or later today. The Government will continue the debate on the Children Bill on Friday 27 October. The debate on the Bill will follow a Ways and Means resolution on the Football Spectators Bill. The Government know that there is concern about, but a good deal of consensus on, the Children Bill and they want cynically to ensure that there is something following the Ways and Means resolution that Members will wish to reach. They wish to ensure that the Ways and Means resolution on the Football Spectators Bill is not debated at length.

The Government proclaim in loud tones and in generality that they are concerned about taxpayers' expenditure—that is money that is spent by the Government—but they do not like hon. Members such as myself speaking on Ways and Means resolutions. They regard that as an inconvenience. When they are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds, millions of pounds or, in the case of the privatisation of the water industry, billions of pounds, it is inconvenient to have an extra 45 minutes of debate after the Division at 10 o'clock. That is what the business is about on Friday. The Government are cynically curtailing debate on the Ways and Means resolution by arranging to take the Children Bill after it. They know that there will be pressure on debate. There will be those who say, "For goodness sake do not talk about money and Ways and Means. Let us get on to the Children Bill, where there is consensus." The notion that the Government are concerned about the Children Bill and are providing time for that is absolutely false. It is a cynical manoeuvre to curtail debate in this place about a subject in which this place should have some measure of interest, and that is the expenditure of money. That is one reason why the change in business has been wrapped up in the motion to curtail business on the Companies Bill.

Although there were shouts from Conservative Members when my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised the question of the Children Bill, the reality is that the Bill was progressing smoothly last night. There had been an extensive debate, but every hon. Member who spoke had a deep and concerned interest. Indeed, I had two amendments on the Amendment Paper concerned with charging for pre-school playgroups. A great many representations have been made to me on that matter. I have received a petition and 100 letters, including half a dozen from organisations running pre-school playgroups in my constituency that expressed great concern about the charges for registration and inspection.

I was surprised to find that, although I had tabled those amendments, and although that usually means that one is called fairly early in the debate, I was in fact called eighth or ninth because of the long queue to speak. Therefore, it is quite false to suggest that there was anything other than concerned and detailed discussion last night.

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)

While my hon. Friend was explaining the importance of the discussion on the Children Bill, I heard Conservative Members complaining about the number of votes that were taken. My understanding—and, I think, that of my hon. Friend—is that we are paid a fairly heavy salary to come to this place to vote on legislation. Are Tory Members suggesting that we are not sent here to do that? If so, what are we paid to do?

Mr. Cryer

In fact, there were very few votes last night because the vast majority of the amendments being debated related to schedule 8. Under the Standing Orders of the House, it is not possible to vote on amendments until we reach the clause or schedule to which they apply. Hon. Members will be aware that schedule 8 is towards the end of a group of schedules which themselves are near the end of the Bill. Therefore, it was not possible to vote on my amendments.

I must make it clear that my amendments were not tabled last night and they were in no way superfluous. I was not the only hon. Member wanting to ensure that the charges were removed. I presented the House with the choice of either removing the charge for inspection and registration or limiting the charge to a maximum of £10. The Minister said that he would not charge more than £10, so through the vehicle of my amendment the Opposition gained a valuable concession. That was not entirely satisfactory, however, because the actual amendment concerned the right of the Minister to issue orders.

As the House knows, these are very unsatisfactory. Ministers change, and an assurance that a Minister gives does not bind other Ministers. The fact is, however, that an assurance was obtained that will go some way towards giving the pre-school playgroup organisations in my constituency some confidence in the fact of support for the figure of £10 in my amendment—support, indeed, that I received in a letter from a playgroup association representing the whole of Bradford. The time was not wasted; it was typical of the way in which the House of Commons works late at night, when there is a good deal of detailed argument and some common sense and understanding.

12.45 am
Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that his attempt to justify his behaviour last night, and the intervention of his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), would have much more validity were it not for the fact that, in the many Divisions that were called, no one voted on his side? If there was real concern, why did no one support the hon. Gentleman in the Lobby?

Mr. Cryer

It simply is not correct to say that many Divisions were called with no hon. Members in the Lobby. As a matter of fact, I was very sorry that my two amendments—Nos. 360 and 361—were not subjected to a Division. I would have asked for a Division to remove all possibility of charging, but—as I explained to the House—that was not possible, because my amendments affected schedule 8, which could not be voted on until that stage in the Bill was reached, which would be at the very end of the proceedings. The truth is that not enough time has been allowed for ordinary consideration of the Children Bill.

Mr. Skinner

I think we need to explain why there were only about three or four Divisions, and Opposition votes in all but one—the first. That was deliberate: we decided to find out how many Tory Members were present before we kicked off with the Bill. That is always a good exercise. If they are down to, say, 130 or 140, we know that they will not last very long, and tonight was a good indication. So, last night, we tested them early on. We did not want anyone to vote, so two of us tested the Tories. We found 183 in their Lobby, and we realised then that they might manage with that number for about an hour or two, but not much longer. My prediction turned out to be right. Now they are making a song and dance about no one voting in our Division; but we did not want anyone to vote in our Division. We simply wanted to find out how many Tory Members were here.

Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South)

That is not the case.

Mr. Skinner

Oh, yes, it is. We found that there were only 183 Tory Members here—and the hon. Member who keeps rabbiting on was not here; he had gone home.

Mr. Devlin

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could advise the House whether the activities described by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) are an abuse of the procedures of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

Order. These are matters for debate.

Mr. Cryer

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your comment indicating that last night's events were perfectly proper and entirely within the provisions of Standing Orders of the House. Yet we are being accused by the Government of breaching them, when that is patently not true.

I must say that I feel very critical of—and angry with—Conservative Members who make such imputations about the Chair. As the House knows, any occupant of the Chair would draw the House's attention to any breach of Standing Orders immediately: he would not need to wait for 24 hours for guidance from some Back Bencher seeking a quarrel where none existed. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends tell me that the hon. Gentleman is highly unqualified to make any such comment, because he was not even here: no doubt he was tucked up in his Division Bell flat.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

I am grateful as this debate has enabled me to learn about the concession which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) succeeded in obtaining late last night. I suggest that that one concession which will be appreciated by playgroups throughout the country is considerably more valuable than anything that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) will do in this place if he lives to be 100. To illustrate the synthetic outrage displayed by Conservative Members in their concern about the Children Bill, will my hon. Friend remind the House how many Government amendments to the Children Bill have been tabled this week? Might that not be a measure of their high regard for getting it through?

Mr. Cryer

I understand that the Government tabled some 400 amendments to the Children Bill. That demonstrates either very bad drafting or concessions in the Committee. Frankly, given this Government's record, the notion that they would make a large number of concessions—although they allowed some on the Children Bill—is not borne out by experience. On Bill after Bill the Government have rejected our modest and minor amendments. It is obviously a mixture of drafting a Bill that is not up to the standards required by the House but approved by the Government, and a number of concessions.

Mr. Vaz

It is important to dispel the myth that there was no co-operation between the two sides of the House concerning the Children Bill. We co-operated throughout the Children Bill, even when we had reached this stage in our deliberations. We co-operated to such an extent that we did not press new clause 5, which I proposed. to a Division because we believed that it was important to make progress. At 2.30 this morning when the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) was in bed, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) argued that we should continue debating the Children Bill as it was so important to get the measure through.

Mr. Cryer

Yes, indeed. A number of us voted that way, unlike the Government who voted for closure, of course without the assistance of the hon. Member for Stockton. South, who, as my hon. Friend pointed out, was in bed.

My understanding is that there has been a good deal of co-operation on the Children Bill. It is quite false and inaccurate for any Conservative Member to argue that that is not the case. Although the Bill has had a great deal of cross-party support, and although it was discussed in Committee in a spirit of assistance from the Opposition, the Government have tabled a huge number of amendments. That suggests that the Government are dealing with these matters in too much haste.

I accept that the Children Bill covers a number of delicate and difficult matters, and therefore the legislation has to be phrased very carefully, as clearly as we can, to make sure that children's rights are properly protected. But that process will not be enhanced by a guillotine—it will be denied. If we are charitable towards the Government—and that is not easy—they must realise that in what they recognise by the number of amendments that they have tabled, to be a delicate and difficult legislative area the process will not be assisted by haste. The Government have to face up to the brutal fact that the measure needs more time because the Government have frittered away the past 12 months on monster Bills such as the Water Bill which was in two volumes. They abused the House by putting through vast quantities of legislation. During proceedings on the Electricity Bill to privatise electricity, the procedure was changed, as a last gasp from the then Secretary of State for Energy who announced that a separate corporation was to be set up to finance the closure of the Magnox reactors. All that was against the background that decisions were not being taken by the Cabinet and changes were being made, yet the House is supposed to deal with this huge volume of legislation.

I was present on Second Reading of the Children Bill. The Government embarked on a cynical manoeuvre. The Minister said that he hoped that there would be consensus and understanding. Much common concern was expressed by hon. Members, and he said that he hoped that the Bill would not become a political issue. By their brutal treatment of the House, the Government made it a political issue. The Bill does not deserve such brutal treatment.

The Government must accept that they will not pass legislation in the time that they have allocated. If they want to deal properly with the Children Bill they will simply have to allocate more time. Of course they do not want to do so, because their obsession with their political ideology and their fear of the Prime Minister prevents them from offering time to allow proper discussion of a decent Bill such as the Children Bill.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the group of amendments that we were about to debate last night on the Children Bill dealt with grandparents' rights. My hon. Friend will realise that the issue was not raised only this year, because hon. Members have been tabling early-day motions about it for years. Many people inside and outside the House will be concerned to hear that a guillotine motion is to be introduced tomorrow, thereby not allowing enough time for that important principle, and many others, to be debated properly.

Mr. Cryer

My hon. Friend is right. One of the reasons why I voted against adjourning debate on the Children Bill was that I knew that for several years my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), aided by other people, had tabled early-day motions and campaigned for grandparents' rights. He was willing to move amendments to the Bill, but he was denied that opportunity, which is outrageous.

Mr. Spearing

The earlier part of the debate to adjourn debate on the Bill was understandably, and quite properly, partisan. I suggest to hon. Members that we should not be partisan on the Children Bill. The public often worry that we are over-partisan. Is it not a fact that time and consideration of the Children Bill are of the essence to get it right? The number of amendments that have been tabled to that non-controversial Bill suggest just that. If the Government are suggesting that they, or any political party, should get themselves out of an embarrassment that they have got themselves into through unwise legislation or an overloaded timetable, or both, by sacrificing proper consideration on a non-party political basis of such a sensitive and important issue, that is surely unworthy of any Government. I therefore appeal to the Leader of the House to reconsider the principle of a guillotine on the Bill—least of all this week—and to consider another way of proceeding, such as reintroducing the Bill in the next Session of Parliament.

Mr. Cryer

My hon. Friend is right. A further abuse of Parliament is that the Government propose to give additional powers to Ministers on many Bills. They are saying, "We have not time to deal with detailed aspects of Bills. Therefore, we shall give widespread delegated powers to Ministers to deal with the details." If the House had adequate powers for dealing with delegated legislation there might be an argument for doing that. As my hon.

Friends know, I chair the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. Frankly, the means of dealing with delegated powers are totally inadequate.

Very shortly, in November, we shall have a meeting of the Commonwealth conference on delegated powers here in London. My guess is that most of the other Commonwealth countries will be able to show us a good deal of better practice in dealing with delegated legislation. One Conservative Member said that it is going to be an exciting conference. He was joking. It will be dull and detailed work. However, it is absolutely necessary if Parliament is to exercise some scrutiny of Ministers' powers, which must be examined to see whether they are using them arbitrarily or whether they are the powers that Parliament has granted.

1 am

That sort of work carried out by a Committee which does not have the right of debate on the Floor of the House, is best carried out in Committee upstairs and, of course, examined by all hon. Members on Report. It is far better that the House should examine Bills in detail on Report than simply shuffle off powers to Ministers and let them get on with it. That is an abrogation of our duty. By introducing this timetable motion, the Government are demonstrating an abrogation of parliamentary rights to carry out those duties. As an hon. Member implied by his lofty joke, the Statutory Instruments Committee's work is detailed. It is actually much more interesting to deal with Bills on the Floor of the House, yet we are being denied that opportunity because of the Government's obduracy.

Mr. Nellist

To ensure that the issue is properly considered, will my hon. Friend care to play devil's advocate in his own argument and consider the opposite side of the coin? Let us consider a Labour Government bringing forth enabling legislation in the form of an industry measure, which would give a Labour Secretary of State for Industry the power to nationalise companies and then, one by one, through either a statutory instrument or regulation, hand over to the Department as and when was necessary to speed up and complete the process as quickly as possible the necessary powers to take over industry after industry. I have heard that argument put forward over the past 10 or 15 years as an elegant and efficient solution to the time-wasting delays that a Labour Government could face from a future Tory Opposition. Will my hon. Friend explore that possibility?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am sure that, in responding to that question, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will stick to the terms of the motion that we are discussing.

Mr. Cryer

Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

It is an interesting train of thought. I am arguing against the proposal to adjourn the debate on the Companies Bill and also on the guillotine proposals that the Leader of the House has produced. The Government will go ahead and try to get their troops into the Lobby to support the adjournment of the debate today or tomorrow, whichever is the correct parliamentary term, to pass the guillotine motions. If a Labour Government were giving delegated powers to take into public ownership companies which were necessarily to be collectively owned and responsible to generate the devastating manufacturing economy that we shall inherit at the next general election, the Conservative Opposition would say, "It's the slippery slope of Fascism. It's Communism gone mad. It's a Marxist dictatorship that is about to take over. Where are our rights as Members of Parliament?" That is what they would be saying and that is what they said when there was a Labour Government between 1974 and 1979.

I was a member of that Labour Government and I recall the activities of the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who was then just the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). After the first 12 months of disbelief that their inherited right to govern had been somehow upset, when the Conservatives finally got some confidence back, they used every dodge to delay and obstruct that Labour Government. Because they were involved in financial arrangements, the Conservatives also used lobbying organisations outside this place in a very unscrupulous way. Labour Members would not do that.

Mr. Skinner

At the beginning of his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to the Tories getting their troops through the Lobbies to get this motion to adjourn the debate carried tonight. It just crossed my mind that if the Tories were down to about 119 votes in the last Division, and as a lot of Tories want to get home to bed, if my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South and one or two of my colleagues continued to talk for a considerable time about this very important issue, the Government might not have the 100 votes to close the debate. If they did not have 100 votes to close it, they really would be in Dicky's meadow, wouldn't they?

Mr. Cryer

As my hon. Friend said, the Conservative Whip is now receiving messages, no doubt from telephonic communications, calling on the loyalty of Conservatives who are asleep in bed to come here to vote.

The Government have moved this motion, but we would prefer to be debating the Companies Bill. We do not want to examine the motion in detail. However, now that the Government have tabled it, they should not be too saddened by our desire to examine it in some detail especially given the Government's unprecedented link between the guillotine motions on the Companies Bill and the Children Bill.

The Leader of the House did not introduce the two guillotine motions in a spirit of progress or to move on the business; he introduced them in a spirit of revenge. The Government have the troops and they have tabled the motions because we have debated issues and taken up more time than the Government had planned for. The Government do not want to have to keep their troops in the House too long. They have an unmanageable spill-over period, but they want to chop off the debate and send their troops back to their constituencies and whatever activities the Tory Members get up to. They want to give them a few days' holiday before the new Session of Parliament. That idea is not working because there is too much legislation. Our extra scrutiny is causing the Government problems and we have seen chaos over the past two days.

As I have emphasised, the Opposition are simply examining the Bills in detail. I took part in yesterday's examination of the Children Bill. What about tonight's debate and the companies legislation?

Mr. Vaz

Can I press my hon. Friend on the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)? My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South was not aware of the detailed negotiations between the Opposition and the Minister for Health. I want to pay tribute to the Minister for Health for the way in which he conducted the Children Bill and for allowing us to discuss important matters with his officials.

Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) agree that in view of the seriousness of the Children Bill, it would be a good idea—if the Leader of the House cannot guarantee what we asked for originally, namely, an extra day's debate—that the Bill should be withdrawn and reintroduced in the new Session instead of rushing through important issues such as the grandparents' rights clauses and the Government's wish, in clause 84, to abolish the ancient jurisdiction of wardship that has been with us for more than 450 years?

Mr. Cryer

That is a useful idea. We could also drop some other item of legislation that is equally complex and lengthy, such as the Companies Bill, and reintroduce it later. A number of useful formulae could facilitate the House in its examination of the Children Bill. The Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill, the Employment Bill and the Local Government and Housing Bill could be dropped to make way for it.

The Goverment may say that they promised the Prime Minister—she is on her way back from Kuala Lumpur—that all the business would be got through. Some Bills are relatively obscure and I suspect that if the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill was dropped and reintroduced during the next Session it might entirely escape the Prime Minister's notice.

The Leader of the House has the opportunity of entering into negotiations to allow the Children Bill to be exempt from the guillotine procedure. Although the Leader of the House is deep in conversation about tactics for tonight, I appeal to him on behalf of my hon. Friends.

I remember the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) in his guise as a Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He used to combine arrogance and vindictiveness to an unusual degree. When he made his Second Reading speech on the Children Bill he was a changed man. He was genuinely conciliatory and willing to help. Therefore, he got a response from us. There is a large degree of good will among those hon. Members who have taken the trouble to examine the Bill. No doubt that good will is shared by those hon. Members who have not taker' the trouble to read the Bill, but who agree, in principle, that it is a good thing to pass a Bill to provide more. protection for children. There is a big question over the resources necessary to finance some of its provisions, but there is an underlying consensus on the Bill, so it would not be a bad idea if the Leader of the House interjected al this stage to say that he would consider negotiations to exempt that Bill from the guillotine motion. It would be to the Government's credit if they did that. It would mean that the Government recognise that a parliamentary democracy has some merit and is not simply a mechanism by which they can push through their ideologically committted pieces of legislation and damn the rest. The rest includes the Children Bill.

I note that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not rising to seize that opportunity offered to him to create good will and a sense of value in the democratic processes. If there were an agreement to remove the guillotine on the Children Bill it would mean that part of the democratic process was being used. The trouble is that the Government do not recognise democracy very much. The only ideas that they recognise are their own and they do not even recognise that this place has any part to play.

The Children Bill was the subject of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, but it is also important to consider the Companies Bill, which is a highly complicated measure. It is designed to scrutinise the operation of companies, the subject of continuous scrutiny by the House during the past 25 years. In recent years a number of items relating to company legislation have been discussed, so it will not do any harm if the Bill is reintroduced in the next Session. The fact that it was introduced in the other place suggests that the Government regard it as non-controversial. My hon. Friends and I would not regard it entirely in that way, but that is the Government's view. Frankly, because the Bill is so complicated——

Mr. Campbell-Savours

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just seen the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) approach the Government Chief Whip, ask for the right to speak and be told that he cannot. That is an intrusion into the rights of hon. Members. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak, he should be allowed to do so. It is not for Whips to instruct hon. Members that they cannot speak in a debate such as this.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman should not speculate in the middle of another hon. Member's speech.

Mr. Cryer

I imagine that the House would probably be a good deal better off if the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) did not speak, but I certainly defend his right to speak in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has done the House a service in raising this matter because if the hon. Gentleman were to speak we could all get a cup of tea while he was holding forth and come back in time for the Division. However, it is a sorry business if the Government Chief Whip is so instructing members of his own party, and it is even more disturbing that Conservative Members do not even have the guts to say "no" to the Chief Whip. They do not have sufficient independence and commitment to democracy to rise and speak. It is true that they will not get the opportunity to do so for a little while because I have a few remarks to make about the Companies Bill. After all, the Government have given us this opportunity and I am loth to allow it to pass.

The Companies Bill is lengthy and complicated. Having had a lot of advice from their legion of civil servants—the Department of Trade and Industry has carried out inquiries into company after company and has produced many valuable reports—it is rather strange that the Government have tabled a thousand amendments to the Bill. We must consider the reasons for that. Was the Bill so badly drafted? Have there been so many changes in the positions of companies that the Government have needed to produce a thousand amendments? Surely, it is reasonable for companies to expect to have some degree of certainty about the procedures and passage of legislation. I should have thought that the degree of uncertainty in the Government's mind, which in turn is producing uncertainty in companies, would merit the Government giving some serious consideration to deferring the Companies Bill to the next Session. That seems the proper way to proceed. I should have thought that in these circumstances, the Companies Bill deserved lengthy consideration.

There was an unfortunate interruption in my membership of the House due to a realignment of the boundaries, but I recall the introduction of a private Bill in 1982, entitled the Lloyds Bill. Some of us opposed it because we said that self-regulation was not the answer. However, self-regulation is the path that the Government have gone down.

Opposition Members want to try to ensure that the Companies Bill is better than the Government have proposed, and that is why we have tabled a modest number of amendments. Certainly, in comparison to the number of amendments that the Government have tabled, the Opposition have been positively parsimonious with their amendments. It is not as though the Opposition had decided to flood the Amendment Paper with amendments because if we had wanted to hold up the Bill as a simple matter of course we could have done so. That is a technique open to the Opposition, but no, we have not taken that course. We decided what we would do as a constructive Opposition, scrutinising matters carefully and disagreeing with the Government's ideology, although, as always, we were in a difficult position because this is a grey area. Should we go for all out opposition, or should we try to improve parts of the Bill and help its passage? These are matters of judgment for the Opposition. We adopted the moderate view that we should try to improve the legislation, to afford genuine protection to the people affected by the Companies Bill—the shareholders, directors and employees.

We wanted, for instance, to improve the Bill by giving shareholders the right to ballot—not an unreasonable view, given the Government's obsession with balloting for the trade unions. We thought that we would take a leaf out of their book and give shareholders the right to decide matters such as political contributions. We tabled a new clause to that effect. We did not table 200 of them, as we could have. We tabled some carefully phrased, moulded and targeted amendments in the best traditions of a constructive Opposition who are biding their time until the general election, after which we shall produce carefully phrased, well drafted and targeted legislation when we form the next Labour Government.

The Government have many resources at their disposal—thousands of civil servants, and advisers on whom they spend about £4 million a year at the taxpayers' expense. I noticed that The Guardian said today that these advisers are paid for largely by the Conservative party. That is not true: I tabled many questions on this and the Government would not disclose the cost——

Mr. Skinner

The company known as the Tory party has more or less gone bust. I have just seen a junior Whip tell the Chief Whip, roughly speaking, "They ain't got a hundred." The Chief Whip pulled a face and sent him out again. That is one reason why the Chief Whip is not moving the closure on this part of the proceedings. The Government have not dared move the closure on my hon. Friend, so they are in more serious trouble than we first thought.

Mr. Cryer

My hon. Friend raises a serious issue. The Government have trampled on parliamentary rights by proposing to adjourn this debate and by producing two guillotine motions later today, but I hesitate to contemplate the idea of their moving the closure on a debate to adjourn consideration of the Companies Bill. That would be outrageous. It is the sort of thing that happened in pre-war Germany. I cannot believe that even this Government would stoop to the gutter of anti-democratic practice and do that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) says that I am gullible. He should have said that I have a touching faith in democracy, but it has been severely wounded tonight by the Government's actions.

My endeavours in this place have included discussions of Ways and Means resolutions. At the beginning of my speech, five or 10 minutes ago, I touched on them. On Friday there is to be a Ways and Means resolution on the Football Spectators Bill. I have raised——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I cannot see what a motion on the Football Spectators Bill has to do with this motion.

Mr. Cryer

Perhaps I can remind you, very humbly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when the Leader of the House moved this motion, he said that the Children Bill, which is to guillotined, will be taken after the Ways and Means resolution on Friday 27 October.

One of the genuine strengths of this place is that there are a lot of loopholes, and it is possible to use this place to raise issues which I suspect is not possible in younger, more mannered, legislatures. Ways and Means resolutions have provided me and other hon. Members with interesting ways in which to raise issues.

Mr. Vaz

I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that I served on the Standing Committees which considered the Children Bill and the Football Spectators Bill. The problem for those of us who have been involved with the two Bills is that there will not be enough time on Friday to consider the issues that they both raise. We understand that the Football Spectators Bill is to be amended quite substantially by the Minister for Sport and the Home Office, as a new criminal offence is to be created in clause 2. The Leader of the House's statement makes it very difficult for all of Friday's business to be considered properly, hearing in mind the fact that there is to be a guillotine motion on the Football Spectators Bill on Monday.

Mr. Cryer

rose——

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Waddington)

rose——

Mr. Nellist

I spy strangers.

Mr. Skinner

I spy strangers.

Mr. Waddington

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

The House proceeded to a Division—

Notice being taken that Strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—

The House divided: Ayes 6, Noes 132.

Division No. 350] [1.28 am
AYES
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) Wilson, Brian
Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Flynn, Paul Tellers for the Ayes:
Lofthouse, Geoffrey Mr. Bob Cryer and
Salmond, Alex Mr. Dennis Skinner.
NOES
Aitken, Jonathan Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Hunter, Andrew
Amess, David Illsley, Eric
Amos, Alan Irvine, Michael
Arbuthnot, James Jack, Michael
Ashby, David Janman, Tim
Atkinson, David Jessel, Toby
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Batiste, Spencer Kennedy, Charles
Bellingham, Henry Kirkwood, Archy
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Knapman, Roger
Biffen, Rt Hon John Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Boswell, Tim Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Bowis, John Lang, Ian
Brazier, Julian Latham, Michael
Buck, Sir Antony Lilley, Peter
Burns, Simon Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Burt, Alistair Lord, Michael
Butterfill, John Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) Maclean, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) McLoughlin, Patrick
Carrington, Matthew Mans, Keith
Carttiss, Michael Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Cash, William Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Chapman, Sydney Meale, Alan
Chope, Christopher Meyer, Sir Anthony
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) Mills, Iain
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Nellist, Dave
Cousins, Jim Nicholls, Patrick
Cran, James Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Cummings, John Norris, Steve
Cunliffe, Lawrence Pike, Peter L.
Curry, David Redwood, John
Davis, David (Boothferry) Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Devlin, Tim Sackville, Hon Tom
Dorrell, Stephen Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Shaw, David (Dover)
Dover, Den Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Durant, Tony Soames, Hon Nicholas
Evennett, David Spearing, Nigel
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) Speller, Tony
Favell, Tony Stevens, Lewis
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Fishburn, John Dudley Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Forman, Nigel Summerson, Hugo
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Forth, Eric Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Freeman, Roger Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Gale, Roger Thorne, Neil
Garel-Jones, Tristan Thurnham, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Golding, Mrs Llin Tracey, Richard
Goodlad, Alastair Twinn, Dr Ian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles Waddington, Rt Hon David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) Wallace, James
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn Ward, John
Hague, William Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Warren, Kenneth
Hanley, Jeremy Watts, John
Harris, David Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Hayward, Robert Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Heathcoat-Amory, David Wheeler, John
Hind, Kenneth Widdecombe, Ann
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) Wood, Timothy
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, John (Coventry NE) Tellers for the Noes:
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) Mr. Irvine Patnick and
Hunt, David (Wirral W) Mr. Michael Fallon.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

There appears to be some genuine misunderstanding about the previous Questions that I put, and there was a certain amount of noise, and spying of strangers. In order to be wholly fair to the House, and to avoid misunderstandings or difficulties, I am prepared to take the closure motion again if it is so moved.

Mr. Waddington

I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 40.

Division No. 351] [1.40 am
AYES
Aitken, Jonathan Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Amess, David Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Amos, Alan Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Arbuthnot, James Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Ashby, David Hunter, Andrew
Atkinson, David Irvine, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Jack, Michael
Batiste, Spencer Janman, Tim
Bellingham, Henry Jessel, Toby
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Knapman, Roger
Biffen, Rt Hon John Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Boswell, Tim Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Bowis, John Lang, Ian
Brazier, Julian Latham, Michael
Buck, Sir Antony Lilley, Peter
Burns, Simon Lord, Michael
Burt, Alistair Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Butterfill, John Maclean, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) McLoughlin, Patrick
Carrington, Matthew Mans, Keith
Carttiss, Michael Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Cash, William Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Chapman, Sydney Meyer, Sir Anthony
Chope, Christopher Mills, Iain
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) Nicholls, Patrick
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Norris, Steve
Cran, James Redwood, John
Curry, David Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Davis, David (Boothferry) Sackville, Hon Tom
Devlin, Tim Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Dorrell, Stephen Shaw, David (Dover)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Dover, Den Soames, Hon Nicholas
Durant, Tony Speller, Tony
Evennett, David Stevens, Lewis
Fallon, Michael Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Favell, Tony Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Fishburn, John Dudley Summerson, Hugo
Forman, Nigel Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Forth, Eric Thorne, Neil
Freeman, Roger Thurnham, Peter
Gale, Roger Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Garel-Jones, Tristan Tracey, Richard
Glyn, Dr Alan Twinn, Dr Ian
Goodlad, Alastair Waddington, Rt Hon David
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles Ward, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn Warren, Kenneth
Hague, William Watts, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) Wheeler, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Widdecombe, Ann
Hanley, Jeremy Wood, Timothy
Harris, David
Hayward, Robert Tellers for the Ayes:
Heathcoat-Amory, David Mr. John Taylor and
Hind, Kenneth Mr. Irvine Patnick.
NOES
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Buckley, George J. Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Campbell-Savours, D. N. Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Cousins, Jim Macdonald, Calum A.
Cryer, Bob Marion, Mrs Alice
Cummings, John Meale, Alan
Cunliffe, Lawrence Nellist, Dave
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Pike, Peter L.
Dixon, Don Prescott, John
Dobson, Frank Quin, Ms Joyce
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) Salmond, Alex
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) Skinner, Dennis
Flynn, Paul Spearing, Nigel
Foster, Derek Vaz, Keith
Garrett, John (Norwich South) Wallace, James
Godman, Dr Norman A. Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE) Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Wilson, Brian
Illsley, Eric
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) Tellers for the Noes:
Kennedy, Charles Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding.
Kirkwood, Archy

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned:—

The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 38.

Division No. 352] [1.51 am
AYES
Aitken, Jonathan Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Amess, David Hanley, Jeremy
Amos, Alan Hayward, Robert
Arbuthnot, James Hind, Kenneth
Ashby, David Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Atkinson, David Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Batiste, Spencer Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Bellingham, Henry Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Hunter, Andrew
Biffen, Rt Hon John Irvine, Michael
Boswell, Tim Jack, Michael
Bowis, John Janman, Tim
Brazier, Julian Jessel, Toby
Buck, Sir Antony Knapman, Roger
Burns, Simon Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Burt, Alistair Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Butterfill, John Lang, Ian
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Latham, Michael
Carrington, Matthew Lilley, Peter
Carttiss, Michael Lord, Michael
Cash, William Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Chapman, Sydney Maclean, David
Chope, Christopher McLoughlin, Patrick
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) Mans, Keith
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Cran, James Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Curry, David Meyer, Sir Anthony
Davis, David (Boothferry) Mills, Iain
Devlin, Tim Nicholls, Patrick
Dorrell, Stephen Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Norris, Steve
Dover, Den Patnick, Irvine
Durant, Tony Redwood, John
Evennett, David Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Fallon, Michael Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Favell, Tony Shaw, David (Dover)
Fishburn, John Dudley Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Forman, Nigel Soames, Hon Nicholas
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Speller, Tony
Forth, Eric Stevens, Lewis
Freeman, Roger Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Gale, Roger Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Garel-Jones, Tristan Summerson, Hugo
Glyn, Dr Alan Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Goodlad, Alastair Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn Thorne, Neil
Hague, William Thurnham, Peter
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath) Wheeler, John
Tracey, Richard Widdecombe, Ann
Twinn, Dr Ian Wood, Timothy
Waddington, Rt Hon David
Ward, John Tellers for the Ayes:
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and
Warren, Kenneth Mr. Tom Sackville.
Watts, John
NOES
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) Kirkwood, Archy
Buckley, George J. Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) Macdonald, Calum A.
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) Mahon, Mrs Alice
Campbell-Savours, D. N. Meale, Alan
Cousins, Jim Nellist, Dave
Cryer, Bob Pike, Peter L.
Cummings, John Quin, Ms Joyce
Cunliffe, Lawrence Salmond, Alex
Dixon, Don Skinner, Dennis
Dobson, Frank Spearing, Nigel
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) Vaz, Keith
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) Wallace, James
Flynn, Paul Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Foster, Derek Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Garrett, John (Norwich South) Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Godman, Dr Norman A. Wilson, Brian
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Illsley, Eric Tellers for the Noes:
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) Mr. Frank Haynes and
Kennedy, Charles Mrs. Llin Golding.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

2.2 am

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful if you could tell us whether you were notified of the intention of the new Leader of the House to make a business statement after midnight. Certainly the Opposition were not so notified—[Interruption.] Given the chiacking of those opposite, normally referred to as the Conservative party, one would have expected them to endorse the idea that the customs and practices of the House should be carried out.

I think you will confirm that, certainly within the memory of any Opposition Member, it has been the custom and practice of the Government to inform the Opposition in advance of any intention to make a business statement in the House. We regard it as a most inauspicious start for the new Leader of the House, the first time some sort of crisis occurs, not to follow the usual courtesies. Therefore, I should be grateful to know whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were notified in advance. It is only right that hon. Members should know such things in advance so that they can be in their places if they so wish.

Let me take this opportunity to make it clear that, from 9 o'clock this evening, the official Opposition received no approaches whatever from the Government about any of the matters under consideration. [Interruption.] I understand from the cries from the Government Benches that many Conservative Members were not around. Opposition Members were present. This shambles, like the shambles of the carry-over Session, results from the Government's incompetence and inability to plan or to pass their legislation.

In view of the fact that 18 months ago I was criticised by Mr. Speaker for not making our protests about guillotine motions clear, it is proper for me to register the fact that we are entirely dissatisfied about not receiving the usual warning or usual courtesies that make the usual channels possible.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I shall deal with this point of order first. I was not in the Chair at the time, but I understand that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is under a misapprehension. The Leader of the House rose to move that further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned. In doing so, as he was entitled to do, he made a speech. It is not customary for the Chair, or anyone else, to receive notice of such a motion.

Mr. Dobson

Why have I in my possession, supplied by the Government after the statement was made, a statement that reads: Business of the House. With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement about the changes in the business for this week"? How was it possible for the people working the annunciator to display "Business Statement" on the annunciator when the Leader of the House rose, giving some hon. Members the opportunity to scurry into the Chamber? Why were we not given the normal warning?

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Let me deal with this point of order. I can only repeat what I have told the hon. Gentleman, which is that what happened was perfectly in order. It may be, and I shall make inquiries about this, that when the annunciator operators realised that in moving the motion the Leader of the House had made a statement about future business, they thought it might be of some assistance to display that for the House. I repeat that what happened was perfectly in order. The Leader of the House rose to move that further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned and made a short speech. It is not normal for the Chair, or anyone else, to be informed of when such a motion is to be moved.

Mr. Cryer

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The fact is that two items were dealt with. One was the motion that debate on the Companies Bill be adjourned, but there was a separate issue. The Leader of the House used the words "business statement" and announced changes in this week's business to the House. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were not in the Chair when I raised a point of order with Madam Deputy Speaker and asked for questions to be allowed. However, because the Leader of the House had not distinguished between the two items clearly, we continued by discussing the motion on the reporting of progress on the Companies Bill.

The changes that the Leader of the House has announced for the business for the week are still outstanding. I cannot recall any occasion when a business statement was made—those were the words that the Leader of the House used—but hon. Members were denied an opportunity to ask questions. I was denied the opportunity to finish my speech, but I would have incorporated questions to the Leader of the House in it, expecting him to reply at the end of the debate. That was stopped by the closure motion, which was accepted rather prematurely after only an hour and a half of debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced parliamentarian. I am sure that he is not casting aspersions on the judgment of the Chair, but it sounded rather like that.

Mr. Cryer

If I can explain, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was taking into account the fact that there is a convention that, ordinarily, a debate lasts two hours before a closure is accepted, but, occasionally and unusually, Mr. Speaker or a Deputy Speaker may accept a closure within a short time. This clearly must have been one of those occasions.

Surely hon. Members should be allowed to ask questions on the business statement, as is the usual custom and practice of the House, long hallowed by the tradition of this place. As the Leader of the House used those words, it seems only right and proper that we should be given such an opportunity.

Mr. Spearing

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have some sympathy with the Leader of the House, having got into an office when there are several unique problems. I can understand the difficulties. However, although, as you say, it was absolutely in order to make a short speech in moving the adjournment of the debate and to explain the reason why that was being done at that time, the absence of the usual courtesies and practices of the House precluded any hon. Member from asking questions about the business statement. That is of great importance.

Strictly speaking, in accordance with your ruling, Sir, no statement has yet been made. All we have had is a speech from the Leader of the House supporting his motion for an adjournment, which has now been passed, but we have had no statement as such. I saw the annunciator when I was in the Library, so I hastened to the Chamber, but I was too late to hear the statement by the Leader of the House.

Would it be proper and in accordance with the practice of the House for the Leader of the House to make a statement—I think that we have a short text—and then for short questions to be asked? I have a question which I have not been able to ask and which is consequent upon the statement. If I cannot do so that way, I wonder whether I can do it through a point of order, because it is a point of order about Friday's business and its conduct.

Mr. Nellist

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Neither you nor I were in the Chamber at 12 midnight when the Leader of the House moved the adjournment motion and announced a change of business. I was in my office upstairs, three floors above the Chamber, when, at 12 o'clock, the annunciator indicated a business statement. I suspect that 95 per cent. of hon. Members in the Chamber at the moment were not in the Chamber at 12 o'clock.

Mr. Cryer

They were boozing. That is the truth.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. This is not a point of order for me. [Interruption.]

Mr. Nellist

If the lager louts opposite would belt up for a second I might be able to state my point of order.

I suspect that 95 per cent. of hon. Members currently in the Chamber were not here at 12 o'clock, because—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member must come to the point of order.

Mr. Nellist

I shall try to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The annunciator did not warn of the statement. That has become the practice in recent months and years when business statements are about to be made. I have two questions. First, in future, will you, Mr. Speaker, other Deputy Speakers and the authorities in the House in charge of the annunciator system reconsider whether there must be clear guidelines on how much notice is given to the operators so that they can give a minimum amount of notice to hon. Members that a business statement is about to be made? I suggest at least half an hour.

Secondly, given that we had no notice, in support of my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), will you now allow questions on the business statement to be put so that hon. Members who are now in the Chamber can ask questions?

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I sympathise with the Leader of the House. He has been flying around the world for the past five years and he is a bit out of touch with the procedures of the House. He has had to consult the Tory Chief Whip to find out what to do—[HON. MEMBERS: "He cannot hear you, Frank."] You can hear them, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you are not doing anything about it.

I have been in the Chamber all night. The Leader of the House stood at the Dispatch Box and said that he was going to make a business statement—[Interruption.] The Leader of the House may shake his head and say that he did not say that. I heard him say that. He made his statement about the change in the business for tomorrow and Friday.

I want you to clarify this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House is denying this by shaking his head, as he did in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I hope that Hansard is not fiddled with. That is the danger, and that would be entirely wrong.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have allowed these points of order to continue for a long time. They are an extension of the motion with which we have already dealt. I can only repeat that the motion that we debated, during which some hon. Members spoke at length and were able to deploy their arguments, was perfectly in order. It was moved by the Leader of the House and the House eventually reached a conclusion on it. It is wholly out of order to extend the debate on a motion on which the House has reached a conclusion. Furthermore, I have a shrewd suspicion that we may return to this subject tomorrow—or today.

Mr. Dobson

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have rightly ruled, and I recognise your difficulties because you were not in the Chair at the material time, as they would say in court. I was not in the Chamber at the material time either. Having been here all evening, I was having a cup of coffee. I was not warned about the statement and neither were the Opposition Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip. No one was warned. Whether or not that is in order, it is plainly contrary to the usual practices.

The present Leader of the House's predecessor and Chair of the Services Committee announced some time ago that it would be the practice to warn Members of the imminence of a statement with an announcement on the annunciator. If we are to receive warnings only when it suits the Government, that undertaking was not worth the breath he spent on it.

In view of the fact that, like me, you were not in the Chamber at the material time, will you consult with those who were in the Chamber and with Mr. Speaker to ensure that in future the customary warnings are given? Had they been given, we could all have gone home some time ago.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am satisfied that my ruling is correct. The points that the hon. Gentleman is raising now are not for the Chair. They would be better dealt with through the usual channels.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have already allowed points of order, which have been an extension of a debate that was concluded some time ago, to continue for a considerable period. I am not prepared to take any further points of order on the same subject. If there are points of order on a different subject, I will take them. We must be fair to the rest of the business of the House. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are waiting patiently to take part in an important debate on merchant shipping.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I will take no further points of order on the previous issue, which I have dealt with clearly and on a number of occasions. If there are different points, I will hear them.

Mr. Spearing

On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As one of those who is waiting for the next debate, I thank you for that remark. Please stop me if the point of order that I am about to raise is within the category you have mentioned.

Can you tell us what is likely to happen on a point of order on Friday as to the suspension of the rule to permit any form of business of which we have heard?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Chair is never prepared to rule on a hypothetical situation, which may or may not arise on Friday.

Mr. Spearing

Further to that point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not within the knowledge of the House that some change in the arrangements for Friday is now within the official knowledge of the House? In accordance with your ruling, which I would not challenge for one moment, is it not possible to question the Leader of the House on that matter? It has been the custom to do so under other circumstances, and no doubt that custom will return. Will the Leader of the House be able to enlighten us on this matter arising out of a point of order on business for Friday? Many people who will want to come to the business that he has advertised will want to know at what time and until when that business is likely to be taken.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is forgetting that I assume that there will be a business statement tomorrow in the normal way. The House will have an opportunity to question the Leader of the House then. Surely that is the practical solution to what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Mr. Wallace

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept fully the ruling that you have just given. If I understand it correctly, you said that, in moving the adjournment of the previous debate, the Leader of the House imparted information, in a supporting speech, regarding a change in the business. Is it a matter of order in this House for the business of the week to be changed in that way, or is a statement required?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not a matter for the Chair.