§ Mr. John Roper (Farnworth)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter on Standing Order No. 43. I make it clear at the outset that I do not wish to challenge your unfettered freedom to nominate whoever you consider proper to a Business Committee. However, I raise this issue in the light of the nominations that you have made to the Business Committee on the Employment Bill, which appear in the annex to the Votes and Proceedings today. I submit that, in making further nominations to the Business Committee, you might consider the precedents of your appointments to Business Committees in the last Parliament, when you attempted to ensure that the representation on Business Committees reflected the "composition of the House".
I realise that paragraph 2 of Standing Order No. 62, which refers to the "composition of the House" in the appointment of Committees by the Committee of Selection, does not apply directly to Business Committees, but I submit that, in exercising your unfettered discretion in appointing Business Committees, you should consider the representation not only of the Government and of the official Opposition but of the remainder of the House.
170 It is my understanding that if the conventions followed under Standing Order No. 62 were to be applied by you in making your nominations to a Business Committee of seven Members, as you have done today, there would be representation on such a Committee not merely from the Government and the official Opposition but also from the remainder of the House.
Without in any way wishing to challenge your appointments, I ask you to bear those points in mind in making further nominations to Business Committees.
§ Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any logical reason why the Social Democratic Party should have any representation on this Business Committee? I ask that not only because so few of its members have been elected as Social Democrats, but because on Second Reading the Social Democratic Party voted for the Bill and supported the Government. That, at least, is what I think happened. Fifteen Members voted for the Bill, five voted against, and five abstained. The broad mass of the party supported the Government, so what possible right does the party have to a seat on the Business Committee?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am grateful to the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) for giving me notice of his point of order. There is substance in the hon. Gentleman's contention that a case can be advanced for the smaller parties to be represented on the Business Committee of seven hon. Members. However, I should make it clear that while Standing Order No. 43 places the responsibility of nominating the Business Committee on the Speaker, it has never been the practice of the Chair to invite hon. Members to serve on that Committee, but rather to accept an assurance that the membership proposed to him is agreed both as to names and party composition. I understand that discussions are now proceeding through the usual channels on this matter. There is agreement about minority party representation, but disagreement about which hon. Member should be nominated for the Committee. I shall look into the matter.
§ Mr. RoperI am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will look into this matter further to ensure that, as far as possible on Business Committees, there is a fair representation of all parts of the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall do my best, although it is a little late in the present case.