RETIREMENT OF TEACHERS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords] (Hansard, 3 November 1976)

§ Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (North Angus and Mearns)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to raise this point of order so early in the debate, but perhaps you might like to take a little time to consider it.
There are to be before the House three Scottish Bills, but I am particularly concerned about the last of them, the Licensing (Scotland) Bill, which received its Third Reading in another place only last night. Since the Government amendments are starred, I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether all those starred amendments will be selected by you for debate today.
Because the Bill came from the other place only last night, it must be emphasised that, although no doubt the Government have had the opportunity of departmental advice to help them, Back Benchers on the other hand are put in great difficulties in examining amendments made in the other place. Many hon. Members, including myself, have been in Committee all morning, and I wonder whether you will be prepared to accept manuscript amendments from Back Benchers if you decide that the business can go ahead.
Finally, I wish to emphasise that the Licensing (Scotland) Bill is an important matter, not a party political dispute, and causes deep feelings among many hon. Members across the party boundaries in this House. The measure has evoked great interest in Scotland and is being followed closely there. The organisations affected by its provisions in Scotland have experienced difficulties in making representations to Members of Parliament because the deliberations in the other place were completed only last night. Therefore, those concerned have not had the opportunity to see what Government amendments have been tabled and have been unable to make the appropriate representations.
Ideally, Mr. Speaker, I believe that because of the importance of the Bill and 1416 because the Government have brought the measure back to this House at such short notice, the measure should be put back for consideration at a later date.

§ Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is intolerable that on the Licensing (Scotland) Bill we should have before us 53 Lords amendments—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to submit a point of order to me, I hope that he will not argue the case which no doubt he will have an opportunity to deploy later.

§ Mr. Monro
I would not dream of arguing the case, Mr. Speaker. I know that you always seek to protect the interests of Back Benchers. My point of order relates to the fact that 53 Lords amendments are now before us and that many of them are starred. This makes life intolerable for hon. Members who wish to carry out their legislative work efficiently—and this especially applies to Back Benchers. The Government should give some explanation of their handling of these matters and say how they expect the House to deal with starred amendments which became available in the Vote Office only this morning. Surely they should have given hon. Members an opportunity to discuss those provisions with interested parties.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I hope that we shall not debate the matter now. Is the hon. Gentleman raising a completely new point which I have not heard?

§ Mr. Taylor
Yes, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I should be surprised if that were the case.

§ Mr. Taylor
Have you ever known me to be wrong, Mr. Speaker?
I wish to mention a separate point and it relates to certain Government amendments to Lords Amendment No. 46 in relation to the Licensing (Scotland) Bill. I understand that you were prepared to consider only amendments to Lords amendments which did not make a substantial change. So far as I can see, the Government, by virtue of their 1417 Amendments Nos. 4 to 9, are virtually rewriting the clauses dealing with Sunday opening. Is that not an unusual use of Lords amendments, particularly on a controversial Bill of this nature? Is it fair that we should have before us a virtually new provision on Sunday opening so soon after the measure has left the other place? How is it possible for hon. Members to study seriously the implications of the provision?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) was quite right. He did have a completely new point of order. I apologise to him for my suspicions. It was as a result of experience—not with him, but with others.
This is not a new situation, unpleasant though it may be. I am advised that it has happened many times before that a Bill which has been discussed in the Lords the night before has then returned to this place with starred amendments. I shall accept the starred amendments. I shall be prepared to examine any manuscript amendments submitted to me.

§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan)
I did not intervene earlier, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order because these matters are for you, and not for me, but the question of taking the Bill today was discussed through the usual channels. No amendments were made to the Bill yesterday on Third Reading in the other place. I appreciate that this is not the most convenient way of proceeding, and I hope that when we come to the controversial amendments—and there are not many—I shall be able to give an explanation that will help the House to understand what they mean.