SCOPE OF PART I (Hansard, 22 July 1977)

§ Mr. Anthony Grant (Harrow, Central)
On a point or order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This Bill, first formally came to the notice of hon. Members when the Order Paper was published this morning. Apart from a somewhat vague passing remark in answer to a supplementary question by the Leader of the House yesterday, most hon. Members had no conceivable clue that the Government were doing something which is not unprecedented but is certainly unusual, namely, giving time for a Private Member's Bill at this late stage. The Government are entitled to do this but is it in order that they should do so merely by putting this business on the Order Paper on the very day proposed for consideration of the Bill with out giving earlier notice?

§ The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (John Fraser)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House made it clear yesterday that this Bill would be part of the business for today.

§ Mr. Grant
The right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped it would.

§ Mr. Fraser
My right hon. Friend did not use the word "hope". He said: I hope"— the hon. Member is correct— that the first matter will be dealt with by the House tomorrow."—[Official Report, 21st July, 1977; Vol. 935, c. 1853.] That was in reply to the first part of a supplementary question put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner).
2176 The second point I wish to make Is that the Order for the continued discussion of the Bill has been on the Order Paper all week. Thirdly, notice had been given through the usual channels that this debate would take place.

§ Mr. Michael Neubert (Romford)
Further to that of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope you will accept my apologies for being momentarily out of the Chamber when this matter was first raised. It is something which I wished to raise myself. I would like to declare that nothing I say should be construed as an attempt to delay the passage of the Bill. The Opposition support the principle of the Bill and welcome the generality of its provisions.
The Leader of the House said as recently as yesterday week: the Government have no proposals for providing extra time for Private Members' Bills. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, dealing with the question of Lords amendments to Bills: there is a difference. Lords amendments should be taken into account in the particular circumstances, but there is a difference, of course."—[Official Report, 14th July 1977:Vol 935,c.788–96.] That remark seemed to be ambiguous. We have already seen how my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) has been considerably inconvenienced because of the practice of giving only 24 hours' notice. Notice in this case was given in an indirect way by means of a planted Question by a Labour Back Bencher.
My point arises on another Private Member's measure which has been on the Order Paper all week, namely, the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Bill. I seek your guidance, Mr.Deputy Speaker, on a point arising from the circumstances of the resumed debate on this Bill May I know whether, if the Government introduce that other Private members' Bill, with the same notice or without any notice at all, it would be in order to move a dilatory motion against such a proposal? It is intolerable for hon. Members to be subjected to this treatment because of insufficient notice being given or notice being given in a way that is often likely to escape the attention of hon. Members unless they are particularly alert.

§ Mr. Anthony Grant
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I make it clear that, according to my information, contrary to what the Minister has said, the usual channels were informed last night that this Bill would not be taken today? It was only this morning that a change of mind took place. My remarks, I think, still apply.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)
This question is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Member for Rom-ford (Mr. Neubert) raised a hypothetical question, which again is not a matter that concerns the Chair. No doubt what the hon. Gentleman has said will be borne in mind by those who are responsible.

§ Mr. Michael Ward (Peterborough)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will it be for the convenience of the House, knowing that there are a number of hon. Members who have specific points to make on these rather technical amendments from the other place, to take Lords Amendments Nos. 3 to 7, to which I shall ask the House to agree? I shall then formally move Lords Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 to allow hon. Members to make their observations on these technical points. I shall carry on in the same way with later amendments.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Is the hon. Gentleman's proposal agreeable to the House?

§ Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is very difficult for anyone to follow such a proposition. It would be much easier to keep to Mr. Speaker's original selection of amendments. Personally, I would prefer us to do so.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
In that case, it is necessary that we should remain with the selection as it exists.

§ Mr. Ward
In the case of the amendment before the House, the debate on which was adjourned on Friday of last week, we had been dealing with the question of protecting the interests of the private land or property owner who might allow his property to be used for a business purpose. The amendment is per- 2178 fectly clear. It means that in certain circumstances liability rests with the person who enters the business arrangement but that the position of the private person will be protected. I therefore hope that the House will agree with the Lords amendment.