§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be for the convenience of the House if I rise on a point of order at this stage.
On Thursday, the Leader of the Opposition inquired about how I proposed to take the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill. I then said that the usual channels were reviewing what aspects of the Committee stage would be suitable for discussion on the Floor of the House. However, I was unable to conclude those discussions last Friday and thus a Government motion was tabled committing the majority of the Bill to the Floor, while sending other clauses and schedules upstairs. Since then I have taken account of further expressions of opinion. Thus, I have concluded that it would be appropriate to take the entire Bill on the Floor of the House. The Government will, therefore, be moving a motion after the conclusion of the Second Reading tonight, suggesting that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his volte face, but might it not have been for the convenience of the House if he had raised the subject not as a point of order but as a business statement? He could then have been questioned on the reasons for the change of mind and on the way in which the business is to be conducted. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, there is a motion on the Order Paper stating that only clauses 1 to 12 and schedule 1 are to be taken on the Floor of the House. We now find that all 27 clauses and all three schedules are to be debated on the Floor of the House. Surely there should have been a business statement rather than a point of order.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a matter for me.
§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding any comments one might have about the manner of announcing the decision, perhaps you will allow me to thank the Leader of the House for coming to that decision rather than being the first Leader of the House to send a 750 Representation of the People Bill to a Committee instead of having it taken on the Floor of the House. May I express to the right hon. Gentleman the hope that that desire for all-party agreement on the procedures for the Bill will extend further into its substance, thus making its passage easier?
§ Later—
§ Mr. WilliamsMay I return to the point of order that I raised earlier about the announcement by the Leader of the House? This is a matter not of propriety but of practicality which affects the way in which we are to conduct today's business.
Had the Leader of the House made a business statement, as he should have, we would have been able to ask him whether he intends to introduce a timetable motion for the Committee stage of the Bill. If he had said that his intention was to introduce a timetable motion you, Mr. Speaker, might have been influenced in deciding whether to apply the 10 minute rule today. If debates were to be curtailed in Committee you may not think that debate should be curtailed on Second Reading.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is not my intention to apply the 10 minute rule today because the number of hon. Members who have so far expressed their wish to take part does not justify it.
§ Later—
§ Mr. WilliamsFurther to my earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to pursue the matter, but, as we discovered during Scottish questions last week, when a Minister does not perform his duties properly you are put in an invidious position. It is important to know whether a timetable motion on the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill is to be moved. As the Leader of the House found it necessary, on a point of order, to announce his change of mind, will he come to his feet again and say whether there is to be a timetable motion for the Committee stage?
§ Mr. BiffenFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am always happy to help the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). When I said that the Government would move a motion after the Second Reading tonight that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, that is exactly what I meant and no more. Of course it does not refer to a timetable.