BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 26 June 1973)

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
I know that it is unusual for procedure motions of this sort to be debates, but I believe that a strong principle is involved and therefore I intend to make a short speech. I recognise the importance of the business which is to follow, but, because of the importance of the principle in protecting the opportunity of Members to raise matters on the Floor of the House which affect the interests of their constituents, I make no apology for causing slight delay in proceeding with the other business.
The House will be aware that, under the Standing Orders, private business set down by the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, when opposed by individual Members, is normally dealt with at 7 p.m. The sort of private business to which the relevant Standing Order applies is business promoted by public corporations, local authorities and other public bodies. Often the business contained in such private Bills is of little consequence, but now and again they involve matters of great public importance and of public policy.
Recently such a measure was the Mersey Docks and Harbours Bill. The United Reform Church Measure also was of national importance. Other examples are the Thames Barrier and Flood Prevention Bill and the British Railways Bill. At 7 o'clock today we should have dealt with the North Wales Hydro Electric Power Bill, which contains matters of considerable public importance. It is a matter of principle that a protest should be made when the Standing Orders are put aside in this manner because it affects the rights, duties and responsibilities of Members, and they should not be swept aside in this fashion.
The normal practice with Private Bills set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means is to take them on alternate days —Government days and Opposition Supply Days. Today happens to be an Opposition Supply Day and under the 1324 Standing Order the 7 o'clock business was down for today. Last year there was no shortage of Supply Days. In fact, we were able to lend the Government two-and-a-half days. It cannot therefore be argued that we are short of opportunities to discuss this business.
The motion is the sort of motion that was considered by the Select Committee on Procedure in the Session 1971–72. The Select Committee considered whether it was right to defer opposed private business until after 10 o'clock at night so as not to interrupt the business of the Government or the business of Supply. The Select Committee—a distinguished body of hon. and right hon. Members—considered the evidence and, in paragraph 8 of its report, came to the conclusion that: The loss of opportunities to debate delgated lgislation has led to a breakdown in that part of the process of legislation, and Your Committee are accordingly concerned to safeguard proceedings on private legislation. They recommend that there should be no change in the time at which the House has at present an opportunity to debate business which although on occasion of apparently minor importance, is often of national significance. That report has never been debated by the House, but the Leader of the House, in answer to a Written Question, said that he accepted the report and went on to say: There may, however, be occasions when it would be appropriate to continue to follow the recent precedents of deferring opposed private business by motion until after Government business has been disposed of."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November 1972; Vol. 847, c. 43.] That has occurred on several occasions. The House, unwisely in my view, agreed to a timetable motion to get through the Industrial Relations Bill and the European Community legislation. I do not believe that it can be justified as a normal method of interfering with the rights of individual Members.
I hope that the Leader of the House will give an assurance that the procedure of putting down motions of this nature will not be used frequently. There may be occasions of urgency when we want to have a full debate without the business being interrupted—such as on Rhodesia —but those occasions must be rare. I hope that we shall be given an absolute assurance that this procedure will not be followed except in matters of such importance.
1325 The right of individual Members to oppose private legislation is important. Most of its goes through undebated on the Floor of the House at any stage. Some private legislation deals with vital matters of public importance, and we must be careful that we do not take away the opportunities for the individual Member —in the exercise of his duty to protect the interests of his constiutents—to debate private legislation at a reasonable time, at 7 o'clock, and not in the late evening when it is virtually impossible to maintain a quorum for such a debate.

§ Sir Robin Turton
There is a great deal of good sense in what has been said by the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved), but I appreciate that there are special reasons why this course is being taken on this Opposition Supply Day.
I remind the House that the Government Chief Whip and the Opposition Chief Whip made a combined approach to the Select Committee on Procedure to change the rule. Having taken evidence, we came to the conclusion that it would be wrong for that change to be made. The Society of Parliamentary Agents said that the change would be against the interests of promoters of Bills.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will give us the assurance that the hon. Gentleman has requested and also the opportunity at some time to debate the recommendations of the Select Committee on this matter so that the views of the whole House may be obtained.

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior)
The House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) for raising this subject and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton). Although the hon. Gentleman may be causing a degree of inconvenience to hon. Members on both sides of the House—perhaps more so to those on the Opposition side—he has raised an important issue, and it is right to spend a little time discussing it.
The hon. Gentleman asked for the assurance that this motion did not detract from the Government's acceptance of the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure. I willingly give him that assur- 1326 ance. I always find it difficult to assess the balance between the rights of private Members to discuss these matters and the rights of the Opposition to have their maximum time. It is difficult for the Leader of the House to balance these considerations.
I had thought that today was an occasion when we could take the private business at 10 o'clock. I am in no way detracting from the importance of the business, which affects several hon. Members' constituencies and has a wide constituency interest for a good many people throughout the country.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend will accept my assurance that the Government are prepared to honour the undertaking that I gave in answer to a Written Question from my right hon. Friend last November. It is the general rule that we should take private business at 7 o'clock and not put it off until 10 o'clock. There will be exceptions to this rule and today happens to be one of them. This is a busy time in the House and there is important business in front of us which I hope we shall get through in good time.
I hope that no one will feel that the Government do not consider this to be an important matter both on the procedure side and also from the point of view of those who are concerned with the North Wales Hydro Electric Power Bill. I hope that with that assurance the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will allow the debate to continue.

§ Mr. Skinner
Would the Leader of the House explain why he and other hon. and right hon. Members from time to time get terribly pompous about the sovereignty of this place when concern is expressed about private business coming on at a late hour, whereas, since we joined the European Community, we have been subject to countless regulations, orders and directives, some of which have come before the House at 2 o'clock in the morning? Why is there this contradiction in the importance attached to private business and the unimportance attached to matters of national sovereignty?