§ Mr. EmeryOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker I rise on a new matter concerning procedure which must be of major importance to hon. Members in all parts of the House. I gave you notice this morning. I raise the point of order now, rather than when Orders of the Day have been called, because it affects all Report stages of Bills and not only that with which we shall be dealing today.
441 Basically, the matter arises because of the growing number of Bills for which Governments of both parties have required timetable motions. It is interesting to note that 12 timetable motions were needed in the 12 years between 1954 and 1966, whereas since 1966–67 Governments have required 33 timetable motions. I use that date for a reason that I think will become evident as I proceed.
The matter of selection of amendments on Report is well understood by the House. It is covered by Standing Order No. 33 and by pages 452 and 453 of "Erskine May". For reasons of limitation of time, I do not intend to read them to the House, but it is important for the House to bear in mind two further matters in order to understand my full submission.
On page 535 of "Erskine May", the paragraph headed
Consideration of Bill, as amendedstates quite clearly:While amendments which were rejected in committee may be moved again, and attempts may be made by amendments to restore the original text of the bill, the power of selection of amendments, conferred upon the Speaker by S.O. No. 33, is a check upon excessive repetition of debates which have already taken place in committee; and this power is usually exercised more freely".—which in this instance perhaps means more stringently—by the Speaker on consideration than in committee by the chairman.In the first four lines of page 453 we read the following words, which are also of considerable importance:in recent years it has become the normal practice for the Speaker (or in Committee of the Whole House the Chairman of Ways and Means) to post a notice setting out those amendments and new clauses which he has provisionally".—underline "provisionally"—decided to select.The basis of my submission is that at all times selection is a very difficult but evolving matter. I think that all hon. Members who wish to see order continue sympathise with the Chair in its difficult job in maintaining the very best standards that have been set. But it is necessary and relevant for the House to understand that there are, in the words of Mr. Speaker King,broad and important principles at work—that is a direct quotation from his submission to the Select Committee on Procedure 442 in 1966 and shows that which Mr. Speaker bears in mind in making his selection.These broad principles set out in the submission made by Mr. Speaker King to the Procedure Committee still operate and any hon. Member who wished to go into the matter would be referred by the Table to that submission. As I understand it, that broad statement of principle still stands as the document on which a Speaker in particular works.
The matter is very important because when there is unlimited time it is up to the House how it spends that time in dealing with amendments, but when there is a guillotine motion, legislation produced by either party when in Government, and opposed by either party when in Opposition, is getting on to the statute book often without consideration either in Committee or on Report. If that is so, it seems to me that a new principle should be considered in order to try to ensure that on Report questions that have not been considered in Committee should be selected by the Chair, and should receive greater emphasis so that the House may consider them rather than having re-runs of previous debates.
In order to be absolutely fair in my presentation, may I refer again to page 87 of the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, which divides the principles at work into two areas—those that govern selection and those that govern rejection. In dealing with selection it is obviously understood that all Government amendments are selected. That is simple and easy to understand. Two other matters are important. Amendments should be selected which involve Government undertakings. I raise no question on that. We then come to:
New compromises or halfway proposalsandimportant issues carefully debated in Committee but still containing vital matters worthy of a 'last look'.When there is unlimited time those matters are, of course, of great importance.I now turn to the reasons for rejection of selection. The first and major reason given is that of
adequate discussion, particularly of amendments that have been rejected on a Division by the Committee".These are not selected.443 I can well see the need for a second look when we have unlimited time. But if I may use, purely because of convenience, an illustration which could possibly arise today, we see that, after the guillotine has fallen at 7.30 p.m., the provisional selection—and it is only a provisional selection—has first selected Amendment No. 69 in the name of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). This will mean that there will be a complete re-run of a debate which we have already had, a debate which ran from 6.48 p.m. to 10.45 p.m. in Committee of the whole House. The Committee reached a major decision after a large number of hon. Members had spoken. If the amendment was of great importance I would submit—because this is a Government Bill and because the amendment seeks to replace the exact words which the Government originally had in the Bill—that the Government should move the amendment. They have not done so.
It seems that there will be a limiting of the discussion on certain Opposition amendments as a result of this re-run. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the debate on Amendment No. 69 will run from 7.30 p.m. to 11 p.m. In the illustration that I use, that would preclude amendments tabled by the Opposition Front Bench concerning rates and the financing of the Scottish Assembly—matters which are of major importance in the eyes of some hon. Members but which have not been debated at all—from being discussed. We are saddled with the discussion of an amendment which has already been very fully considered.
It seems that, since the principles on which Mr. Speaker should work were adumbrated by Mr. Speaker King, because of the larger number of guillotine and timetable motions which are now coming forward, there is a new responsibility on the Chair to be borne in mind when selecting amendments. In the Report stage when there is a timetable motion it is more important to allow the House to discuss amendments which have not been debated at all in Committee or on Report than to have a re-run on an amendment on which the House has already reached a conclusion.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) was good enough 444 to give me notice this morning that he would seek to raise this point of order and I have, therefore, had an opportunity to consider the points he has raised.
The House is aware that Report stage is an important stage of a Bill. It is the last opportunity the House has of looking at its various proposals before it leaves this House, if it gets a Third Reading. It is true that Mr. Speaker King gave important evidence on this question to the Select Committee on Procedure in 1967. The power of selection, given by Standing Order No. 33, is wholly discretionary. It is neither usual nor desirable for Mr. Speaker to give reasons for the selection or non-selection of any amendment.
I remind the hon. Member, to whose argument I have listened with great care, that when Mr. Speaker King was referring to rejected amendments from Committee stage and spoke particularly of those rejected on a Division in Committee, he was not dealing with a similar situation to that which we have now. The short answer is that this was not an amendment rejected in Committee. It was part of the original Bill. There is a major difference.
Since I have been in the Chair I have exercised my discretion when we have come to Report stage, even when there has been a Division in Committee. It is something I do with great reluctance and very rarely. I have made my selection and I am afraid that it must stand.
§ Mr. EmeryFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful to you for your ruling. In no way do I wish to question that ruling as it affects the selection of amendments for today's business. However, I wonder whether you would consider the matters I have raised today of enough importance for the future to see whether my submission should not be part of Mr. Speaker's "broad and important principles" when selecting amendments on Report if the guillotine is involved. I do not ask for an answer today but I should like an answer at some time on that point.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. This is really a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure. I will, of course, look at this myself and if necessary get in touch with the hon. Gentleman rather than make a statement in the House.