Business of the House

HC Deb 19 March 1991 vol 188 cc213-23 6.59 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor)

The House will have heard my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announce in his Budget statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would introduce legislation shortly to authorise payments of extra grants to local authorities and to ensure that community charge payers will reap the full benefit.

I thought that it would be for the convenience of the House—[Interruption.] —I am sure that it would be for the convenience of the House and more generally if I made a short business statement about the arrangements for handling the Bill.

In view of the urgent nature of this legislation, the Bill will be published on Thursday. It will be proposed that all stages of the Bill are taken on Tuesday 26 March and are preceded by a timetable motion to achieve this.

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)

This is an act of sheer desperation on the part of the Conservative Government, an act of panic—the Government taking action which truly merits the hackneyed phrase of the Tory party: "throwing money at the problem".

Will the Leader of the House make it clear that it is the Government's intention to introduce a guillotine to force this Bill through the House next week, and that proper debate on the use of between £4 billion and £5 billion of taxpayers' money is to be curtailed to suit the convenience of the Tory party and the Government? Is it not already clear that this one-off, desperate measure will mean that the poll tax will stay in place for many people? This is not an abolition of the poll tax Bill; it is a buying-off of opposition to the poll tax Bill.

I make it clear that there can be no guarantee in advance that the Labour party will give an easy passage to this legislation or support it in the Lobbies.

Mr. MacGregor

The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) will know from the Chancellor's statement that this follows the Chancellor's conclusion that local taxes are being asked to bear too large a burden and that the level of the community charge is still too high. That was the clear explanation in the Chancellor's speech.

I can confirm that there will be a timetable motion. The reason for that is that I believe that both local authorities and all community charge payers will wish the House to pass the legislation swiftly to ensure that the arrangements can be put in place and that Parliament will have completed its work before we rise for the Easter recess. It will enable the arrangements to be put in place. That is very much what local authorities would wish and certainly what community charge payers would wish. That is why we are doing it.

I have noted that the hon. Member for Copeland indicates that the Labour party will fight this tooth and nail——

Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South)

He did not say that.

Mr. MacGregor

All right, they are not going to fight it tooth and nail, but they are going to go on opposing—I am not exactly clear what they are doing. Let me put it this way. The Bill will be published on Thursday. I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues see the Bill, they will realise that it is very much in the interests of community charge payers, and that it is therefore desirable that the Bill gets through as quickly as possible.

Once the Bill is published, it will be part of the Budget debate, so it will be possible to debate the issues involved, since it is part of the Budget statement, on Thursday and on Monday as well as throughout Tuesday. That is plenty of time for the House, and I therefore think that the motion that I have proposed is a sensible one.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must remind hon. Members that we are now in private business time. [ Interruption.] Well, we are, and the statement is a very narrow one.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only desperation is on the part of Opposition Members who see their foxes shot, not least their allegation that the Government have been dithering? What on earth are they complaining about?

Mr. MacGregor

I agree with my hon. Friend. After due consideration, we have come to conclusions, and we are now taking decisive action. That is the right thing to do.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

Will the Bill to which the Leader of the House has referred affect England, Scotland and Wales, and will statements be made to the House by the Ministers concerned?

Can the Leader of the House tell us of any previous occasions, and if so when, on which a significant piece of local government and tax legislation was forced through the House of Commons on a guillotine motion in one day?

Can the Leader of the House tell us whether, having had to throw money on the scale of billions into the hole that the Government have created with the poll tax, he is now prepared to throw democracy out of the window at the same time?

Mr. MacGregor

The Bill will cover England, Scotland and Wales, and it will be clear, as I say, when it is published on Thursday. That will give plenty of time for the House to consider the Bill. I am advised that the Bill is a short one and that there will therefore be enough time for it to be fully considered before we come to debate it specifically on Tuesday.

There is at least one precedent: the Finance (Income Tax Reliefs) Bill, which went through in one day on Thursday 17 November 1977. I seem to recall that the party of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was participating in a pact round about that time, but it went through in one straight day.

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement today will be very enthusiastically welcomed in areas such as Gosport, which has a modest rateable value and where therefore the impact of the community charge was quite heavy? Is he also aware that, between the Budget statement and this business statement, there was a most successful meeting between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Conservative Members upstairs, and that perhaps the warm welcome for the Budget is the reason why the Labour party is so upset?

Mr. MacGregor

I am sure that my hon Friend is absolutely right on the second point. On the first point, I am sure that not only is it to the advantage of the community charge payers of Gosport that we get this Bill through quickly, as we propose, but also that they will benefit from the community charge reduction scheme.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I ask hon. Members not to make points that might legitimately be made during the course of debate, or party political points. For the convenience of the House, this is a statement about this new Bill; we should confine our questions to that.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

I welcome the statement, because it reflects the fact that the Secretary of State for the Environment has paid attention to the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe). Will this Bill therefore include the welcome news of the Chancellor for the ratepayers of Northern Ireland, or must we wait until another occasion? It would be a scandal if it were not included in the Bill.

Mr. MacGregor

The important point is what the Chancellor said in his statement—that domestic rate bills in Northern Ireland will be reduced as well.

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the Labour party's reaction to his statement? Does he agree that their behaviour——

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is just what I hoped hon. Members would not do. Ask about the business statement, please.

Mr. Wilshire

That is precisely what I was doing. We have a business statement, and we must consider the response to it. Opposition Members are reacting to my right hon. Friend's sensible suggestion like a bunch of headless chickens. They are clutching at anything because they are desperate to prevent us doing precisely what they asked us to do. What is all the fuss about?

Mr. MacGregor

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am surprised at their reaction because I have announced that we intend to proceed with the Bill in a way that is convenient not only for the House but for local authorities and many others. They want to know the timetable applying to my right hon. Friend's statement in relation to the Bill. That is all I have announced and I believe that it will be for the convenience of all and will be widely supported.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)

Does the Leader of the House accept that the organisation of, and financial arrangements for, the poll tax differ in England, Scotland and Wales? Given the time constraint on the debate on Tuesday, will he give an assurance that the Secretary of State for Wales will make a statement on Thursday about the implications of the changes that are the background to the financial change that we shall discuss on Tuesday?

Mr. MacGregor

My statement tonight is purely about the business handling of the Bill: it is not about the wider background or about anything to do with the community charge more generally. I am tonight simply talking about the arrangements for carrying the Bill through.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. It might be for the convenience of the House if I remind hon. Members that the Leader of the House has already said that the issues will be debatable during the passage of the Bill. I think that I shall have to take into account, when I come to draw up my list of hon. Members who wish to participate in that debate, those who are raising issues now.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the narrow Bill in question will be designed specifically to ensure that Scottish community charge payers, among others, will get the benefits of the transfer from community charge to value added tax, which I recommended in my paper—[Interruption.]—on the subject?

Mr. MacGregor

I am sure that my hon. Friend will try to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in the debate, but I confirm that that is what the Bill is about.

Mr. David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside)

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for the last 12 years Opposition Members have pressed the Government not to withdraw the billions of pounds in resources that have been taken out of local services? So we are the last to be churlish about putting money back in that direction.

Earlier in the day, your Deputy in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, called this the mother of Parliaments. To push through a Bill in one day, curtailing debate on issues as complicated as how local authorities will deal with the consequences of the community charge reduction scheme, the rebate scheme and the administrative costs and chaos that will result—the residents of the borough of Wandsworth will end up with no bill at all in the coming year for the provision of local services—is unacceptable, especially on such matters of major national importance.

Mr. MacGregor

I cannot comment on the first part of that supplementary question, which is a matter for another debate. The Bill does not relate to all the points to which the hon. Gentleman latterly referred. It is a straightforward, simple Bill to fulfil what the Chancellor talked about this afternoon. That is why the time that we are giving to it, as well as the time that will be available during the Budget debates to deal with it, is adequate.

Mr. David Shaw (Dover)

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be enough time to discuss the Bill next Tuesday, bearing in mind the fact that, according to my calculations, it will benefit tens of millions of people, and that the only people who will be worse off are single-person households who spend at least £5,000 a year on VAT-able goods and services and double-person households who spend at least £10,000 a year on such items? In other words, a great contribution towards the community charge reductions will be paid by foreign visitors, tourists and wealthy people. Are Opposition Members proposing that those people should be supported?

Mr. MacGregor

Without going into the details, I am sure that my hon. Friend is right that large numbers of people will benefit from the Bill and will wish to see it proceeding through Parliament as quickly as possible, given that it is short and that the issues are straightforward. Not only should they have that benefit, but local authorities should have the opportunity to know exactly where they stand, so that they can make their planning arrangements before the financial year begins. There are clearly many reasons in favour of the procedure that I have put to the House.

Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)

Is the Leader of the House, as something of an exiled Scot, aware that Scotland was used as a guinea pig for the poll tax? We had it a year ahead of any other part of the United Kingdom. Is it not a trifle bizarre that the Bill which we shall debate next week and which will be pushed through expeditiously will absolve some payments in Northern Ireland, in terms of impact of rates, when the people there have never had the poll tax? Although we in Scotland will have had it for nearly three years, we shall receive only the same type of compensation as will be awarded to charge payers in England and Wales.

Mr. MacGregor

I do not think that any points relating to the procedure or the business statement arise out of that supplementary question.

Mr. Cecil Franks (Barrow and Furness)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his proposals and suggested timetable are warmly welcomed by his hon. Friends, especially as they show at long last the Government's determination to get to grips with local government spending, which has got totally out of control? Is he further aware that his proposals will be welcomed nowhere more than in the county of Cumbria, where the county council showed its total lack of ability to control expenditure, in that, with a £302 million budget, it set its spending £1,000 below the capping level?

Mr. MacGregor

My hon. Friend has given good reasons to support the procedure that I am recommending to the House and that we hope to follow next week.

Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no precedent for acting in the way that he proposes? Almost immediately after hearing the Budget statement, the Leader of the House tells us that a panic measure is afoot and that we are to look at the whole of local government finance in one day. When that issue was last looked at, it took several years. There was supposed to be "nothing ruled in, nothing ruled out", with a full discussion and examination of all the issues. That is now being telescoped into one day's debate. It is scandalous.

Mr. MacGregor

I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman, who is normally very fair about matters of this type and considers them carefully. He is suggesting that the Bill is about the whole area of local government finance and is one of the outcomes of the community charge review. The Chancellor made it clear this afternoon that that was not the case. He said: My right hon. Friend :the Secretary of State for the Environment will be announcing very soon the conclusions of our review of local government. The Bill is about the Chancellor's statement this afternoon that local taxes are being asked to bear too large a burden. It is about that one issue. I am beginning to think, from the way Opposition Members are reacting, that they are rattled—[Interruption.] We shall be interested to see their reaction to the Bill and hear sustained and detailed objections sufficient to show that the proposal that I am announcing is not reasonable.

Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the past six months, the methods of tax collecting for local government and matters concerned with the duties of local authorities and the ability of people to pay for them have been exhaustively discussed, in a way that they have never been discussed before? Does he further agree that many of those debates have been called by Her Majesty's Opposition when the utter emptiness of the arguments have been matched only by the emptiness of the Opposition Benches? My right hon. Friend's timetabling on this occasion is totally correct.

Mr. MacGregor

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)

This is not the time to speak about the merits or demerits of the Bill, but it is certainly the time to speak about the Government's proposals to handle—or, rather, mishandle—its passage. No local government finance measure has ever been treated in such an extraordinarily abrupt and dictatorial way. The Leader of the House is inflicting on us nothing short of contempt. He is using procedures which the House has used in the past to deal with grave national crises simply to rescue himself from the serious political crisis in which the Tories find themselves.

Mr. MacGregor

That is simply not the case. I am merely announcing how we intend to proceed with the Bill to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred. As next week is the last week before the Easter recess, it must be for the convenience of the House to have this information. Of course, I shall make the normal business statement on Thursday. On that occasion, I shall announce the rest of the business for next week and, I hope, some of the business for the week of our return. Clearly, it will be to the advantage of all those affected by the Bill that it should be proceeded with expeditiously, so that the legislation may be in place before the start of the financial year. That is why we are taking these steps.

Mr. Ian Bruce (Dorset, South)

May I support Opposition Members, particularly those from Wales and Scotland, who are quite rightly calling for three Bills? This measure is intended to ensure that local taxpayers will pay less. Surely it would be only fair to equalise percentages among taxpayers in Scotland, in England and in Wales. My constituents will probably have their community charge reduced by at least £200, while those in Scottish and Welsh constituencies will get a reduction of only about £100.

Mr. MacGregor

My hon. Friend raises a wider point that he may wish to deploy on another occasion. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, in his Budget statement, made clear what the Bill will achieve and what the community charge reduction will be. As the change will apply throughout the country, one Bill is the right way to proceed.

Mr. Ken Eastham (Manchester, Blackley)

While the Opposition readily welcomed the Government's proposal, I put it to the Leader of the House that, in view of the agony in which the Government now find themselves, they ought to explain the position of the thousands of people who are at present in the process of being prosecuted. Will the prosecutions be suspended as a result of this legislation?

Mr. MacGregor

The hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well that this Bill relates to next year: my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made that clear. Throughout the country, there is condemnation of those who have refused to pay the community charge this year.

Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud)

Does my right hon. Friend believe that those hon. Members who so far have not paid any part of their community charge may be tempted by this announcment to do so?

Mr. MacGregor

I think that I made the position clear a moment ago.

Mr. Robert Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)

Now the the Tory flagship has proved to be about as watertight as the Titanic, will the Leader of the House tell us what we are entitled to know? What will the title of the Bill be, how many clauses will it have, and will the timetable motion be taken between 3.30 pm and 7 pm on Tuesday? Is this House to be asked to deal with an entire Bill on local government finance between 7 o'clock and the end of the parliamentary day? What is proposed is for party convenience rather than for parliamentary convenience.

Mr. MacGregor

Actually, it is for the convenience of the wider public. The Bill will be introduced tomorrow, and will be published on Thursday. We shall also publish a timetable motion this week. The detail of the proposal will then be clear.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. As I have already said, we are eating into private business time. I shall allow questions on the business statement to continue for a further seven minutes.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

The Government will not buy off the British electorate with this money. People are not stupid; they know what is going on. Throughout the north-west of England, where people's anger will not be abated by this announcement, there will be much concern. People will still be faced with poll tax bills on average of more than £250. The Leader of the House quoted a precedent for what is to be done on Tuesday. Can he confirm that the 1977 legislation was not guillotined?

Mr. MacGregor

In his opening comments, the hon. Gentleman strayed very wide of the business statement. The Bill to which he referred went through in one day. We believe that, in the interests of the wider public, including the hon. Gentleman's constituents, it is right that this Bill should complete its passage next week.

Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)

Does the Leader of the House realise that, even at this late stage, there is such a thing as credibility in politics? If the right hon. Gentleman ever had any credibility, he has done his best tonight to shed it. His handling of this measure is an absolute affront to the House of Commons. It was he who extended the length of the Easter recess. Now he has the nerve to tell hon. Members that, while they are about to have an extra week's holiday, the Government intend to guillotine legislation that will have a vital effect on every person in this country.

The Leader of the House and his hon. and right hon. Friends are pathetic sights. Having queued up to obey a three-line Whip by going through the Lobbies to introduce the poll tax and, thereby, punish the people of this country, they will queue up to obey a three-line Whip on Tuesday by going through the Lobby in support of legislation to get rid of it. This is sheer political opportunism, for which the British electorate will not easily forgive the Government.

Mr. MacGregor

I refute the hon. Gentleman's charge. I am slightly sorry that he made it. I have tried to make it clear that the purpose of trying to get this Bill through next week, irrespective of the Easter recess, is to enable all the necessary procedures to be put in place before the beginning of the financial year. There is no connection with the extra week in the Easter recess.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)

Will this Bill be amendable? It will get rid of only one third of the poll tax bills of Londoners next year. Some hon. Members, including myself, would like to get rid of the other two thirds. Indeed, we should like to see the Bill do away with the whole poll tax system. Will it be possible to amend the legislation in that way?

Mr. MacGregor

The Bill is about the issue which I have described and to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred this afternoon. If the House should so decide, this measure, like any other, may be amended.

Mr. John Battle (Leeds, West)

Can the Leader of the House confirm that, today, he sent the chief executives of all local authorities a message that they should suspend the dispatch of all poll tax bills? Can he confirm that local authorities will be reimbursed for the chaos caused by something whose purpose was to convenience the Government? Or will he tell us that, having ridden roughshod over local authorities for the past 12 years, the Government are about to ride roughshod over Parliament?

Mr. MacGregor

That is not really a matter for me. It does not relate to the business statement. While I cannot go into details, I can say that I understand that local authorities will be reimbursed for their administrative costs.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)

The Government are taking the unprecedented step of guillotining a Bill before it has been published. Is it their intention to go even further and curtail the democratic rights not only of this House but of another place to debate the Bill? The Government seem to be intent on setting new precedents and devising new ways of negating democracy.

Mr. MacGregor

For reasons that I have already explained, it is desirable that we get the Bill through both Houses of Parliament before the Easter recess. We hope that it will be possible to have all the stages completed next week. The reason for my making this statement tonight is that everyone should know what is proposed.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)

In a business statement lasting a mere two or three minutes, the Leader of the House has demeaned both his office and himself. [Interruption.] We can take very easily the sneers and jeers of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, who will have to jump through a hoop willingly, just as they jumped through a hoop in the opposite direction in the last two or three years. The job of the Leader of the House is to protect the interests of its Members.

I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman two questions that so far he has been totally unable to answer. First, is there any precedent for a Bill of this sort being guillotined and taken through in a day? Second—the simplest of all questions—will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, with the benefit of his inside Cabinet knowledge, what the Bill's title is?

Mr. MacGregor

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman made that last point. As Leader of the House, I am doing what I have been frequently urged to do—keeping the House informed as early as possible of arrangements proposed for the recess and for everything else.

I do not quite know how a Bill of this sort would be defined, so I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's first question—purely in relation to the guillotine, that is. As for his second question, it is surely right to follow the usual process, which is that, when the Bill is introduced, its title will become known.

Dr. Cunningham

Does not the Leader of the House owe the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the House an apology? Was not his answer about precedents for this Bill dishonest? Should not he now apologise for misleading the House when he said that there were precedents for Bills being treated in this way, because clearly there are none? Is it not clear that the Conservatives' flagship is being not so much abandoned as deliberately scuttled by all the Conservative Members who went through the Lobbies and voted for it? And will not people seeing hospitals closed, waiting lists for operations lengthened and schools crumbling be astonished that, although money is not available for those problems, £4.5 billion can be found to buy off opposition to the poll lax?

As the Leader of the House wants proper consideration of this Bill, why did he not tell us what it is called and how many clauses are in it? If he does not have a name for the Bill, I will suggest one: the Save the Tories' Skin Bill.

Mr. MacGregor

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will forgive me for straying into the hon. Gentleman's point of policy substance, but it is important to stress that what my right hon. Friend announced today was a change in financing arrangements, not a change in overall public expenditure.

As for precedents, for the avoidance of all doubt I reiterate that the precedent to which I referred when I responded earlier was one of many cases of all stages of Bills being taken in one day. [HON. MEMBERS: "They were not guillotined."] I have already explained, and will say again, just to make the position absolutely clear, that it is very much for the convenience of community charge payers, and especially for local authorities, that the arrangements should be put in place as quickly as possible after the start of the financial year. That is why we believe it important that the Bill should get through next week, and it is why we have decided to follow the procedure that I have outlined.

I have also stressed that I understand that this is to be a short Bill which the whole House will see on Thursday. There will be opportunities to refer to it on Thursday and on Monday as well as throughout its stages on Tuesday.

Several Hon. Members

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker

I call Mr. Lawrence.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the House is entitled to know that this Bill is to be called the Labour (Shooting of Fox) (No. 1) Bill?

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I will take some points of order, but the House must bear in mind other hon. Members' time, into which we are now eating.

Mr. Beith

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago you said, and the Leader of the House repeated it—perhaps trying to acquire the authority of the fact that you said it—that it will be possible for us to debate the contents of this Bill on Thursday and on Monday. That will not help Members who speak in the debate tomorrow, but there is a more important point than that.

Those of us with experience of Bills such as the poll tax legislation know that their details are explored only by way of amendment. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that Conservative Members tabled amendments to the poll tax legislation which had great bearing on the problems that have since arisen. As I understand it—you will correct me if I am wrong—it will not be possible to table amendments to this Bill before we know its name, before it is published or, unless there is a special motion, before Second Reading; so it will not be possible to table amendments exploring the details of the Bill, or for Members to seek answers from Ministers on those details——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I never said that. If the hon. Gentleman was listening carefully, he will know that it was the Leader of the House who said it. What I said was that we can discuss this matter in business questions on Thursday——

Mr. Beith

Ah. Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that it will not be possible to refer to amendments to the Bill during proceedings on the Budget on Friday, Thursday or Monday, and that only the time allocated by the Leader of the House will be available for amendments, some of which may not even be considered. Am I right in that assumption?

Mr. Speaker

Quite right—everybody knows that.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are eating into private business time.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is evident that it is the Government who have placed you and the House in this difficulty. It is quite clear that there is no precedent for a major Bill of this sort being timetabled, so may I urge you——

Mr. Speaker

Order. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Madden

May I urge you to urge the Government not to proceed with a guillotine motion, and to allow a second day for debate on this Bill?

Mr. Speaker

These are patently matters for the usual channels, not for the Chair.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Well, Mrs. Fyfe.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not clear from what the Leader of the House said whether a Scottish Office Minister will be present for the debate to answer questions about the impact on Scotland.

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you now extend questions to the Leader of the House for at least another quarter of an hour——

Mr. Speaker

No, I will not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because Scottish Members have been called.

Mr. Maxton

Further to that point of order——

Mr. Speaker

Sit down, please. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain if his time were taken up by points of order of this kind.

Mr. Maxton

Nonsense.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You kindly referred to the fact that there was a need for the usual channels to negotiate aspects of the legislation. I wonder whether you, as protector of the House, can extract from the Leader of the House agreement to a meeting with representatives of all parties in the House before the business statement on Thursday.

Mr. Speaker

I am sure that that sensible suggestion will have been heard. Now we will proceed——

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I will call two more hon. Members and then proceed with the British Railways Bill.

Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sad that you did not take up the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) about extending business questions slightly——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have already made my position clear. I have an obligation to protect the business of the House and other hon. Members who want to speak.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a guillotine has already been announced—unusually for a Bill—my point of order relates to the selection of amendments. You might be tempted to select only amendments that might fit into the pattern of the guillotine. It would help to show that some shred of democratic procedure is still left in the House—after these proposals by the Government—if you made it clear that you will not select amendments purely on the basis of the Government's allocation of time, but that you will select them in such a way that the House can see the range of amendments that could have been discussed had we been given the time.

Mr. Speaker

I assure the House that, in that respect, I shall do my duty.

The Clerk will now proceed to read the title of the private Bill set down for consideration this day.

Several Hon. Members

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

I call Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson.

Several Hon. Members

rose——