Finance Bill (Hansard, 12 July 1982)

§ Sir William Clark (Croydon, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have made your provisional selection of amendments, and I do not complain about that. Many of my amendments and new clauses have not been selected. You will recollect that we had a long debate about indexation on the Floor of the House—it was clause 71, to which I moved various amendments. Although I retabled a new clause on indexation, it has not been selected. I understand that that is because it was debated in Committee.
I have also tabled new clause 17. I shall be delighted if it is selected, but I shall understand if it is not. However, I wonder whether you are changing precedent, Mr. Speaker, because amendment No. 57 has been selected for debate. Amendment No. 57 deals with a subject that was debated in Committee on the Floor of the House. I have always understood that if a subject is debated in Committee on the Finance Bill, whether voted upon or not—amendment No. 57 was voted upon—it would not be selected for discussion on Report.
I know that your selection, Mr. Speaker, is headed "provisional". Has there been a mistake and should you have selected new clause 17 instead of amendment No. 57? It is a valid point. We have had one debate on that subject. Should we have another, because that could apply to the entire Finance Bill, as many of us have tabled new amendments that were not debated either here or in Standing Committee?

§ Mr. J. W. Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to support your selection—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am very grateful, but it is unnecessary. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), who has been a Member for a long time, plays an important part in Finance Bill discussions. He will know that it is common for a matter of major concern that has been debated in Committee to be debated again on Report. I am not saying that everything that has been debated in Committee is called. That does not happen. I have often said that Report stage is not a repetition of the Committee Stage. However, there is a difference in the wording of amendment No. 57. I think that the date is different for one thing. A considerable number of names have been added to it since the Committee debate. I am 652 not seeking to give reasons why I have selected it. I am merely giving that additional information to the hon. Gentleman.

§ Sir William Clark
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I well understand what you say. New clause 17 is differently worded from the amendment that I put down to clause 71. You have mentioned the matter of importance. Amendment No. 57 is a matter of importance. Many hon. Members have signed the amendment. If I had been so minded, I could have persuaded many of my hon. Friends to sign the amendment. I do not think that one plays the game that way. I accept your ruling. I feel, however, that when something has been debated and voted upon, it is unfair that other hon. Members whose amendments have not been called, either here or upstairs, should be squeezed out.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is common for hon. Members whose amendments are not called to feel frustrated. It is not often, however, that I receive an application from anyone to withdraw an amendment that I have selected. That is exceptional. I take note of that interesting point.

§ Mr. Peter Shore (Stepney and Popular)
On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. While it is normal for matters of major importance which have been discussed earlier to be brought back in the proper form on Report, can you say whether it is normal, or indeed proper, practice for the Government to table no fewer than five new clauses, two schedules and a shower of starred amendments late on a Thursday before the Report stage the following Monday? Is this not either a sign of gross incompetence and mismanagement in the Treasury or an abuse of the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not for me to comment on the way in which the Government conduct their business.