BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 31 October 1979)

§ Mr. Speaker
I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr, English).

§ Mr. English
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the motion is debatable, which no doubt is one reason why you have not selected the amendment.

§ Mr. Speaker
I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that the longer we 1263 spend on this motion the less time we shall have for the procedure discussion later, because at 10 o'clock I shall be obliged to put amendments without discussion at all if the debate on this motion goes on for too long.

§ Mr. English
I understand that, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to speak for very long on this topic. I merely intend to point out that although I accept the principle of the motion—because it seemed to work well on the previous occasion when we used it, and enabled us to arrive at decisions on all those issues of procedure which are often stocked up for a long time without decisions being made upon them—it requires you, Mr. Speaker, to put all the outstanding questions at 10 o'clock. That may lead to some misfortune, because not all the motions on the same topic coincide.
By way of illustration, I refer to the first two motions. The first proposes that the House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of Session 1977–78, and agrees with the recommendations contained in para. 2.9. If we agree with those recommendations it means that there will be short speeches between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m., which is roughly the same as what is stated in motion No. 2. However, the recommendations referred to in the first motion also state that you should ignore the customs of the House and not give priority to Privy Councillors before 7 o'clock. Of course, if we continued with the normal custom it would clearly be possible for Privy Councillors to preempt the business up to 7 o'clock, when all other Back Benchers from 7 o'clock to 9 o'clock would be limited to short 10-minute speeches.
I shall not go into that issue, Mr. Speaker, and you would rule me out of 1264 order if I did. The problem is that, by implication, Privy Councillors are mentioned in motion No. 1, because they are mentioned in para. 2.9 of the report, whereas they are not mentioned in motion No. 2.
It is sloppy drafting, although I understand the possible reasons for it. If the two motions are put and carried, Mr. Speaker, you will be in the position of having to obey the first and not give Privy Councillors precedence, or having to obey the second, which does not mention Privy Councillors. You should not have to tolerate the sloppy drafting of others.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not for me to debate the matter with the hon. Member. I simply remind the House that Privy Councillors have never been able and never will be able to take up the entire time until 7 o'clock. It was not my predecessors' custom, and it is not mine, to call two Privy Councillors from the same party one after another. I call another Back Bencher from the same party before the second Privy Councillor.