1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196 
Sharp exchanges on integration policy
Page 67
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ASHORT, sharp Front Bench exchange about transport integration livened up the Commons last week.
It started off innocently enough, with Sir Martin Redmayne, the Shadow Minister of Transport, asking the Prime Minister what variations of responsibilities there had been since the appointment of Mrs. Barbara Castle.
If Sir Martin was referring to the allocation of responsibilities between departments, the answer was "none", replied Mr. Wilson.
But, retorted Sir Martin, was it not true, as was learned from the propaganda put out from No. 10, that Mrs. Castle had accepted responsibility to socialize transport by integration, whereas this responsibility had been rejected by her predecessor on the best advice available?
If that was the best Sir Martin could do, he was getting very worried about it, replied the Prime Minister. It had been explained on many occasions—before the election, during the election and since—by Mr. Fraser, that Labour policy was to integrate.
That was the policy of the last Minister, it was Mrs. Castle's policy, and she was getting on with it.
Against the best advice already accepted by the Government, observed Sir Martin.
Back came the Prime Minister with: "I do not know whether the right honorable gentleman is referring to his own ineffective speeches, or claiming some knowledge, accurate or inaccurate—presumably the latter—of the advice tendered to the Minister by his and her civil servants."
This caused a protest about "personal abuse" from Sir Ian Orr-Ewing (Tory, Hendon North), who asked the Speaker to draw Mr. Wilson's attention to the example he was setting.
It was important that the House must leave the cut and thrust of debate in the control of the Chair, replied the Speaker. He hoped, too, that members were not going to be too hypersensitive.