§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at this day's sitting, Motions Nos. 3 to 12 on the Order Paper may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour and that when proceedings on the first Motion have been disposed of or, if any amendments have been selected to that Motion, when the first such amendment has been disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of the Motions and of any amendments moved thereto which have been selected by him.—[Mr. Biffen.]
§ Mr. David Stoddart (Swindon)I am rather puzzled that the motion has been tabled by the Government. It means that we shall consider together 10 separate items of business with item 3, Consideration of Estimates. Presumably that is because they are all procedural items, but the items are diverse and range from Consideration of Estimates, to Supply and Ways and Means, Liaison Committee, Periodic Adjournments, Consolidated Fund Bills, and Opposition Days. We cannot have a reasonable and ordered debate on subjects so diverse, especially after 10 o'clock. Indeed, it may be much later than 10 o'clock if the consolidation measure takes longer than some of us would expect.
It is inconsiderate that the House should be called upon to debate such a range of issues on one motion, when so many amendments have been put down. It is insulting to expect so many matters relating to the procedures of the House to be debated so late and on one motion. We are not short of time, and there is enough time to debate properly such important motions for the protection of Back-Bench Members and the Opposition.
I hope that the Leader of the House, bearing in mind what I say and what many other hon. Members believe, will reconsider the matter and withdraw the motion so that we can have a proper debate today, or will withdraw nine of the motions so that we debate only the first item tonight. The House may then be able to do its job properly and discuss at proper length the important subjects on the Order Paper.
§ Sir John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)Before my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House replies, perhaps he would consider that motion No. 6 proposes a serious abridgement of private Members' rights, of which you, Mr. Speaker, are the guardian, and for which my right hon. Friend has great consideration. To limit the debate on such motions to one and a half hours is perhaps the largest infringement of private Members' rights that has been proposed for a long time.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)I do not like the business motion, as it is an attempt by the Government to get their business through the House at their convenience. It is proposed that the debate will start fairly late, after the debate on the Royal Navy and the consolidation measure. The debate will start after 10 o'clock, and there is a business motion to allow the consolidation item to be dealt with, though opposed, until any hour.
I wish to make it quite clear that I do not intend to prolong the proceedings, but many hon. Members are interested in the motions, not least for the very point made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). Adjournment debates are prized by many Back Benchers as an opportunity to raise important issues. There are virtually no other means open to them of doing that.
36 As interest is generated and time passes, the Government become apprehensive about losing time for their business on the following day. The Government could obtain a closure on the first item and, having passed the business motion, the House would be obliged to consider all of the other motions forthwith. There would be no more time for debate, because if the closure were agreed to by the Chair on the usual basis—three or four hours, with perhaps more latitude because of the wide range and scope of the motions—by virtue of the business motion every other item would have to be considered forthwith.
That is not a good system, as many changes are involved. Moreover, it puts the weight of argument on a purely procedural matter on the Government's side, as they are able to move the closure in the knowledge that their business is finished. If, on the other hand, there is genuine argument—I expect that there will be—about the validity of some of the proposals, the Government may see sense and make a reasonable compromise. If the business motion is passed they will not have to do that. That is why I do not like the motion.
Many of the items are important. The first is extremely important. The number of days to debate the Estimates should be extended, but it is not the only important issue. The power of the Liaison Committee is highly contentious, and motion No. 6 is important. The issues are important to Back Benchers and, therefore, they should be left to the good sense of the House.
I expect that Back Benchers do not want to spread the debate out unnecessarily, but they are worried about their rights. One must make use of the opportunities to raise issues. To see those opportunities curtailed is a source of anxiety to Back Benchers. The matter should be left to take its course. The business motion is not necessary. The matter should be left to the House.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Stockport, North)I support the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). I hope that the Leader of the House will reconsider the motion. If he is not prepared to do so, I hope that the House will defeat it.
Many hon. Members were worried when they discovered last Thursday that the debate on the procedures of the House had been set down for 10 o'clock. That is not the best time for careful consideration of 10 motions. Many of us were aware that there were likely to be many amendments as well. We have now discovered that not only have the Government decided that the matter should be debated at an inconvenient time, which is not conducive to good debate, but that all 10 issues have been put together so that they must be discussed and voted upon together. That is very unsatisfactory.
The 10 motions are in many ways distinct. They are linked because they all relate to procedures of the House, but the issues that they cover remain separate. It would be far better to debate each separately. Not only are there 10 motions, but eight amendments have been selected and put into five groups. That suggests that there are five distinct areas for debate, yet the Leader of the House is asking us to debate them together. If debate in the House is to mean anything hon. Members should have a chance to address themselves to the same issue at one time. If one must deal with 10 issues in one speech, one has little chance of dealing with all of them adequately.
37 Back Benchers must be worried by the fact that we are being asked to consider not only the procedure for dealing with Estimates, but with Motion No. 6, Periodic Adjournments, which may receive less attention, although it is a major infringement of Back Benchers' rights, and motions on Consolidated Fund Bills, Supply and Ways and Means, Selection of Amendments, and Opposition Days on Fridays. Many hon. Members who represent constituencies that are a long way from London will have much to say about the allocation of time on Fridays. It will be difficult to get answers to all those matters if they are lumped together.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley mentioned the Government's ability to obtain a closure. I hope that the Leader of the House will give a categoric assurance that on an important issue such as this—10 motions and eight amendments in five groups are involved—he will not dream of enforcing a closure until every Back Bench Member has had an opportunity to express his view.
Far better than that, I hope that the Leader of the House will say that he will withdraw the motion, so that the first item can be debated at 10 o'clock tonight—I am sure that most hon. Members would like the debate to be over by a reasonable time—and that, if there is not sufficient time to debate all 10 motions, they will be dealt with on other nights.
If the business motion is passed, it will be impossible to space out the 10 debates, irrespective of all representations to the Government. They will all have to take place at once. There will be Divisions on the 10 motions and the possibility of Divisions on the eight amendments—18 Divisions at the end of the debate, in which the issues will have been confused. I beg the Leader of the House to withdraw the motion. If he will not do that, I beg the House to defeat it.
§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)This has been a short but, I think, helpful debate. I wish to comment, first, on the remarks of my hon. Friend for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) before dealing with the Opposition speeches. Clearly I cannot anticipate the course of the debate, but my hon. Friend will see from the Order Paper that on the subject of Periodic Adjournments an amendment to the Government motion has been put down by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and others. My hon. Friend may be delighted to find that the superior wisdom of the right hon. Member for Deptford has triumphed over my own modest considerations.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettIt is a carve-up.
§ Mr. BiffenIt is a carve-up in which the bulk of the spoils are carried off by the right hon. Member for Deptford. I thought that that might at least merit a cheer.
§ Mr. BennettDoes the Minister not appreciate that much of the concern relates to the rights of Back Benchers, as opposed to those of Front Benchers? Any time limit is a curtailment of the rights of Back Benchers. That is one of the issues that we shall wish to emphasise.
§ Mr. BiffenYes, and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) and others have put down an amendment in the same direction as that of the right hon. Member for Deptford. I shall be 38 accepting the spirit of that amendment, too, but it is not, and cannot be, the purpose of my remarks now to anticipate the course of that debate.
On the objections raised by the troika represented by the hon. Members for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart), for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), there is nothing extraordinary about the form that has been chosen for this evening's debate in which a whole range of subjects of a procedural character are to be considered in one and the same debate. The Select Committee report was a totality covering all these topics and it was presented to the House as one report. The House debated all those recommendations in one debate in February. Today the House has the opportunity to consider them further in the light of motions inviting the implementation in part or in whole of the Select Committee report.
Of course a number of important and related issues are covered. That is why the business motion makes the debate open-ended. We do no service to the importance of the issue if we believe that we can approach the problems of procedural reform item by item on separate occasions. That would be a charter for every hon. Member who wished to impede any procedural reform.
On that basis, I recommend that the House should now endorse the motion.
§ Question put:
§ The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 99.
40| Division No. 278] | [4.30 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adley, Robert | Eggar, Tim |
| Aitken, Jonathan | English, Michael |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Eyre, Reginald |
| Ancram, Michael | Finsberg, Geoffrey |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne) | Fisher, Sir Nigel |
| Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone) | Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Fookes, Miss Janet |
| Banks, Robert | Goodhew, Sir Victor |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Benyon, Thomas (A'don) | Gorst, John |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Gow, Ian |
| Best, Keith | Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Gray, Hamish |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Greenway, Harry |
| Blaker, Peter | Griffiths, Peter Portsm th N) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Grylls, Michael |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes | Gummer, John Selwyn |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Hamilton, Hon A. |
| Brinton, Tim | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) |
| Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon | Hannam, John |
| Brotherton, Michael | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n) | Hastings, Stephen |
| Browne, John (Winchester) | Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael |
| Bruce-Gardyne, John | Hayhoe, Barney |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael |
| Buck, Antony | Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. |
| Budgen, Nick | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Burden, Sir Frederick | Hordern, Peter |
| Butcher, John | Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd) |
| Cadbury, Jocelyn | Hunt, David (Wirral) |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Irvine, Bryant Godman |
| Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul | Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Jessel, Toby |
| Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n) | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith |
| Colvin, Michael | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine |
| Cope, John | King, Rt Hon Tom |
| Costain, Sir Albert | Kitson, Sir Timothy |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Knight, Mrs Jill |
| Crouch, David | Knox, David |
| Dickens, Geoffrey | Langford-Holt, Sir John |
| du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Dunn, Robert (Dartford) | Lee, John |
| Durant, Tony | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Dykes, Hugh | Lester, Jim (Beeston) |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| McCrindle, Robert | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Macfarlane, Neil | Shersby, Michael |
| McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st) | Silvester, Fred |
| Major, John | Sims, Roger |
| Marlow, Antony | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Mather, Carol | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus | Speed, Keith |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Speller, Tony |
| Mayhew, Patrick | Spicer, Jim (West Dorset) |
| Mellor, David | Squire, Robin |
| Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) | Stainton, Keith |
| Moate, Roger | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Molyneaux, James | Stanley, John |
| Monro, Sir Hector | Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire) |
| Moore, John | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) |
| Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) | Stokes, John |
| Neale, Gerrard | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Nelson, Anthony | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Neubert, Michael | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Normanton, Tom | Thompson, Donald |
| Nott, Rt Hon John | Thorne, Neil (Ilford South) |
| Onslow, Cranley | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Osborn, John | Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath) |
| Page, Richard (SW Herts) | Trippier, David |
| Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil | Trotter, Neville |
| Patten, John (Oxford) | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Pattie, Geoffrey | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| Pawsey, James | Viggers, Peter |
| Percival, Sir Ian | Waddington, David |
| Peyton, Rt Hon John | Wakeham, John |
| Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down) | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Price, Sir David (Eastleigh) | Walker, B. (Perth) |
| Raison, Rt Hon Timothy | Warren, Kenneth |
| Rathbone, Tim | Watson, John |
| Rees-Davies, W. R. | Wells, Bowen |
| Renton, Tim | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Rhodes James, Robert | Wheeler, John |
| Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Whitelaw, Rt Hon William |
| Ridley, Hon Nicholas | Wickenden, Keith |
| Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Roberts, Wyn (Conway) | Wilkinson, John |
| Roper, John | |
| Rossi, Hugh | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R. | Mr. Ian Lang and |
| Sainsbury, Hon Timothy | Mr. Tristran Garel-Jones |
| NOES | |
| Alton, David | Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P) |
| Ashton, Joe | Canavan, Dennis |
| Atkinson, N.(H'gey,) | Carmichael, Neil |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Cohen, Stanley |
| Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd) | Cook, Robin F. |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g) |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Dalyell, Tam |
| Buchan, Norman | Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd) |
| Deakins, Eric | Palmer, Arthur |
| Dixon, Donald | Parker, John |
| Dobson, Frank | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Dubs, Alfred | Pendry, Tom |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Pitt, William Henry |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Eastham, Ken | Prescott, John |
| Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E) | Price, C. (Lewisham W) |
| Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) | Race, Reg |
| Evans, Loan (Aberdare) | Richardson, Jo |
| Evans, John (Newton) | Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
| Field, Frank | Robertson, George |
| Fitt, Gerard | Rooker, J. W. |
| Flannery, Martin | Ross, Ernest (Dundee West) |
| Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd) | Rowlands, Ted |
| Golding, John | Sandelson, Neville |
| Graham, Ted | Sever, John |
| Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Sheerman, Barry |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Haynes, Frank | Short, Mrs Renée |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Silverman, Julius |
| Homewood, William | Skinner, Dennis |
| Hoyle, Douglas | Spearing, Nigel |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Stallard, A. W. |
| Jay, Rt Hon Douglas | Stoddart, David |
| Johnson, Walter (Derby S) | Straw, Jack |
| Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
| Leighton, Ronald | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) |
| Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Tilley, John |
| McElhone, Frank | Urwin, Rt Hon Tom |
| McKay, Allen (Penistone) | Wainwright, E.(Dearne V) |
| MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor | Welsh, Michael |
| McNally, Thomas | White, Frank R. |
| McWilliam, John | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Maynard, Miss Joan | Whitlock, William |
| Mikardo, Ian | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
| Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | Winnick, David |
| Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby) | Woolmer, Kenneth |
| Moyle, Rt Hon Roland | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Newens, Stanley | |
| O'Halloran, Michael | Tellers for the Noes: |
| O'Neill, Martin | Mr. Bob Cryer and |
| Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Mr. Andrew F. Bennett. |
| Owen, Rt Hon Dr David |
§ Question accordingly agreed to
§
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, Motions Nos. 3 to 12 on the Order Paper may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour and that when proceedings on the first Motion have been disposed of or, if any amendments have been selected to that Motion, when the first such amendment has been disposed of, Mr Speaker shall put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of the Motions and of any amendments moved thereto which have been selected by him.