Business of the House (Hansard, 7 December 1982)

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Leader of the House did not react to the last point of order, I hope that he will be able to respond to mine. The Standing Orders of this House exist for generalised good order. They are overridden only in an emergency, when speed is required, for some generally acceptable reason, or following debate. That is not true in relation to the Standing Orders concerned with the hour of interruption. The business motion is not of that character. It has the protection of the House in that it is debatable. The business motion relates to the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill, which is down for Second Reading today.

§ Mr. Kaufman
Before my hon. Friend proceeds, I wonder whether the Leader of the House would intimate that he has taken note of the point I have made? It would be a courtesy to the House if he would say whether he would consider the point I have made and respond to it. Otherwise, it would appear that this point of substance has been brushed aside by the Government.

§ Mr. Speaker
Before the Leader of the House replies, I should say that I waited to give him an opportunity for intervention. It would have been untidy but I will be untidy.

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)
Of course I have taken note of what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) has said. I came in to listen to the previous business, but I stayed on since he had given me notice of the question. I realised the importance that he attaches to it. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, feel that I have afforded him the courtesy that he merits.

§ Mr. Spearing
The business motion not only permits the Second Reading of the Bill but allows further stages to be taken. I have every reason to believe that Third Reading will be taken as well. I think that there is universal acceptance that short and uncontroversial Bills can be taken on the Floor. It is sometimes very convenient to take them in a subsequent week, perhaps in 10 minutes or even less, rather than that they should go to a Standing Committee. To take them on the same day is done only when there is an emergency or their subject matter is highly technical. I suggest that it is bad practice unless there is a very good reason for it.
On Second Reading points are often raised that can be dealt with only subsequently in Committee. Issues may be raised by those outside the House who hear our deliberations, as they have every right to do, and then they can be raised in Committee.
The debate today concerns money, technically, although it may range wider. The fact that amendments which may be in order may be related only to figures emphasises the point that the control of this House over the Executive is in relation to money, granted not only through 731 Votes but in respect of loans, which this Bill is about. It will be impossible for hon. Members to take effective account of matters raised in the debate if we take the Committee stage immediately. Indeed, there was a motion on the Order Paper on Friday enabling amendments to be put down prior to the Second Reading debate. That is a procedure which is acceptable only when the need for it has been demonstrated.
I ask the Leader of the House to explain why the Committee stage could not have been taken next week. It may have taken just three minutes, but it would have called for the proper discharge of business in the House. Perhaps the Leader of the House feels that it is not possible on this occasion, but he has an obligation to tell us why. I hope that the exercise will not be repeated in future. Once this procedure becomes too frequent, any Government could use it too often, to the detriment of proper scrutiny of the Executive.

§ Mr. Biffen
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for raising this matter with me before he raised it on the Floor of the House this afternoon. It is a matter of real concern to Back-Bench Members and I accept the validity of the hon. Gentleman's argument. However, this procedure has often been used by Governments. That does not mean that every time it is used it does not need fairly close scrutiny.
The House has already agreed to a motion enabling amendments to be tabled before Second Reading. It was designed to help facilitate our procedures, and, although I pay the hon. Gentleman fulsome credit by saying that he is not one of nature's "usual channel" men, I hope that he will consider that there is some merit in my argument when I say that this matter has been considered by the usual channels. The Royal Assent is required as soon as possible because of financial arrangements in respect of the CDC. I hope, in view of that explanation, that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to accept the motion.