If one discounts the Treasury Bench and the Parliamentary Private Secretary representation, one is left with 100 per cent. freedom-fighting representation on the Government back benches. It is in that spirit that I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and to say that the Committee owes him gratitude for raising the point he has raised, because it is one of substance, for two reasons.

First, there are the arguments put with such tantalising enthusiasm by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), that there was a form of managerial Toryism which was thoughtlessly fashioning the very weapons that he wished to inherit at a subsequent electoral triumph. I am not sure that that is true. I am not sure what is the significance of the Long Title when it says "make temporary provision". I do not know whether the fact that that is in the Long Title would itself prevent the use of the legislation for the right hon. Gentleman's much wider-ranging ambitions.

But what we cannot dispute is that energy—fuel and electricity, oil supplies—is one of the most commanding of all the commanding heights of the economy. Therefore, casually to place on record in perpetuity powers which at least could excite the perhaps misguided enthusiasm of the right hon. Gentleman is a mistake. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will reconsider the dangers that might be implicit in having on the statute book a piece of legislation which could be used for ambitions and objectives wholly outside those of a temporary, emergency character.

Secondly, Parliament has one asset which it can trade with the executive, whether a Conservative or Labour executive. That asset is time. It should not be traded away without careful thought. If this legislation had been passed after the Suez crisis, the powers which are now being sought by the Government would have been automatically employed by such a Bill lying dormant but capable of resuscitation. We would not have been granted the amount of parliamentary time which we have been able to extract by having a Committee stage on the Floor of the House, which enabled my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) to demonstrate the tremendous social changes which have occurred in their constituencies which makes rationing on this occasion in prospect wholly different in character and consequence from what it had been some years previous.

None of us, not even the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart), is so nostalgic and so romantic in our concept of society that we suppose it will be stuck in its current composition. If some emergency arises five or 10 years hence requiring this kind of legislation, our successors will be anxious to demonstrate that the changes in their constituencies are of material and demonstrative consequence, and wholly different in their consequence than those way back in 1973.

We have obtained the opportunity to have such a discussion and to make such points of the Floor of the House. I remain convinced that the Floor of the House is still the most effective of the available options. We have had to put through the Committee stage speedily. My right hon. and hon. Friends will concede that, when the country is faced with difficulties or an emergency, Parliament does not play the fool. That is the joy of this institution. Whatever may be its occasional absurdities, which may be a useful safety valve, the truth is that it is a deliberative and legislative institution which has an uncanny, immensely helpful and happy sense of reality and proportion. Given the present situation and the legislation before us, perfectly legitimate doubts are raised. They are not doubts that merely exercise libertarians on the Government benches ; they exercise libertarians in the Labour Party.

It may be said by some managerial regime in the future "We had better give them all a day for a debate on the Adjournment" That is not quite the same. That has not the range of refined options which is before us. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) made a hopeless gesture because it was not believed that there was the possibility of a vote. One gets a nose for such things after a while. But the hon. Gentleman knows well that all the opportunities for a vote are provided by a Committee stage on the Floor of the House for this type of emergency legislation.

All too often we learn to experience in this House that the consequences of a good deal of our legislation often outstrip and falsify our expectations. When I trudged through the Lobby faithfully supporting the Industrial Relations Act, I had no concept that I would bring into being a somewhat enhanced rôle for the Official Solicitor. Again, when I did not trudge through the Lobby because I thought it would be such a passing irrelevance, I had no concept that under legislation furthering science and technology literally tens of millions of pounds would be plucked out of the air to support the British computer industry. Such money should not be voted to the British computer industry, but we can have that debate on another occasion. Legislation often bears consequences that are not apparent at the time of its execution.

12.15 a.m.

That is why I say that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford is not raising false fears when he asks whether it is wise for legislation of this character once put on the statute book in a rush to be left there in perpetuity. It is the hallmark of the managerial Government that wants to line up legislation after legislation, perhaps of a temporary character but always there, as one quick button for some future executive to press without the complicating processes of coming to Parliament and being subject to the irksome representations of Members of Parliament who want to plead their Constituency cases on the Floor of the House even in the early hours of the morning.

My hon. Friend may not be able to offer hope that he is not merely aware of and sympathetic to the anxieties that have been expressed but that something will be done. I hope he will say that the Bill is not to be the final creation of parliamentary workmanship and is capable of improvement, perhaps not this evening but in Another place. Perhaps when we come to give our final assent he will say that our arguments which are serious, substantial and fundamental will receive recognition.