§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This morning, a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments met to consider a Prayer in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends. A vote took place at the end of the proceedings in which the Government were defeated. I raise this matter with you, Mr. Speaker, because the Government have placed the House in some difficulty. They have given the House the choice of either having a debate on the important matter of student grants in Standing Committee—where any vote taken would have no effect—or to have no debate at all, unless the Leader of the House does us the courtesy of providing time to enable the necessary motion to be moved.
In the past, many assurances have been given from the Dispatch Box that, for matters of controversy and 892 contention, time will be allowed for such Prayers to be debated. Those assurances are on record, and apply to successive Leaders of the House. Is there some way in which a further assurance can be exacted from the Leader of the House? If not, can the matter be taken before the Procedure Committee so that such matters of controversy—especially when the Government have been defeated in a vote—can be debated on the Floor of the House, when there can be a substantive vote?
§ Mr. Phillip Whitehead (Derby, North)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit that this is a matter concerning the rights of the House. When a Committee has found a statutory instrument profoundly unsatisfactory and voted it down, and taking into account the fact that the Leader of the House had previously given undertakings that student grants should be debated on the Floor, it is incumbent upon the House, if its rights are to be protected, to place a motion on the Order Paper giving the House an opportunity to vote on the repeal of the statutory instrument before Prorogation tomorrow.
§ Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. You, and the Leader of the House, will recollect that several years ago the Procedure Committee recommended that a special procedure be used for dealing with such matters, which would result in a matter that was defeated in Standing Committee having to be considered on the Floor of the House. Is it not appropriate that the Leader of the House should arrange such a debate, especially as the debate in Committee this morning brought out the fact that the regulations do not have the legal consequences that the Government thought they had before this morning's debate?
§ Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Leader of the House cannot make a statement today, should he not do so tomorrow? I know that this is not a point of order for you, Mr. Speaker, but as there is such concern about the issue, and because of the undertakings given about student grants over some considerable period, I hope that the Leader of the House will make a statement tomorrow, if not today.
§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of he House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)If it will help the House, I shall consider the points that have been raised.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe Leader of the House has made his statement. I shall briefly say, in answer to the point of order of which I had notice—[Interruption.] I am giving an answer. I understand that the time during which a Prayer could be put down against the regulations has expired. For that reason, the provisions of paragraph 5 of Standing Order No. 73A do not apply, and there is no action that I can take as Speaker.
§ Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, Central)Further to the point of order. Can I get the matter clear? Unless I misheard the Leader of the House, he gave no undertaking to make a statement in the House tomorrow. Will he now give that specific undertaking?
§ Mr. BiffenIt is certainly my intention to consider the matters that have been raised. I take account of the anxiety of the House that a statement should be made tomorrow.