§ Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on the conduct of the main business before the House today. As all hon. Members are aware, conventions are laid down regarding notice and our procedures following the publication and Second Reading of Bills which are to be considered by the House. In that connection last Thursday I received from the Secretary of State for the Environment a letter which asked me to agree, on behalf of the Opposition, to a method of procedure for consideration of the Bill. I received that letter on Thursday at about 1 pm. It made no mention of the fact that later that day the Government intended to table 38 amendments, two major revisions of clauses and a new schedule, which itself extends to more than 2,000 words.
That information was not printed on the Order Paper until the following day and was not available in the House until after 1 pm on Friday afternoon. That means that no one in local government affected by the legislation had any opportunity over the weekend to consider the legal or financial implications of the changes to the Bill Even worse, the Government have presented us, at a very late stage, with notes on clauses which refer to the Bill as it stands and not to it as it is affected by the Government's amendments.
Such are the depths of confusion and chaos that it is a fair guess that even now scribes are busily working away in the Department of the Environment to amend the amendments. In December, the Secretary of State for the Environment claimed that he was the only person who properly understood what the law was in these matters. Even if that is true, he is signally unable to communicate it to anyone else, even, apparently the officials in his own Department.
The reality is that it would be to the disadvantage of everyone concerned, and certainly to this House and to local government, if we were to consider these matters today—matters, I emphasise, which have major legal and financial significance for the whole of local government and for the totality of rate support grant to be paid for the coming financial year.
I understand that, under the Standing Orders, and specifically Standing Order No. 34, it is possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to accept a motion to adjourn so that we do not consider this business today, thus enabling the Opposition and, for all I know, many Conservative Back Benchers, and certainly those in local government., to consider the major implications of what is proposed before they are considered by the Committee. I seek your guidance and advice in the interests of our protection, Sir.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe proper place to debate this issue is after the Orders of the Day have been read and the House has gone into Committee. I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means has selected amendments up to clause 9 for consideration today. The hon. Member will have seen from the Amendment Paper that a procedural motion on the order in which the Bill should be considered has been tabled. The debate on that motion is the proper time to raise this matter.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest 603 respect, I put it to you that your duty is to protect the Members of the House and people generally in respect of legislation. You have just suggested that we have a remedy that we can use when the House goes into Committee, but, as I understand it, we may put our points not to you but to the Chairman of Ways and Means, or whoever is in the Chair. It seems to me that we are facing a difficult matter in that the Government are legislating to put right that which the courts found the Secretary of State to have done. Therefore, we have every reason to want to be able to consult local authorities about the legal implications of this legislation.
I found it impossible to get hold of the schedules and to consult either the Stockport or the Tameside local authority to ascertain the legislation's implications. I should have thought that, if we are to have good legislation, it was essential that you protect the rights of Members and people outside the House to consult about the legislation, so that we can make speeches that are relevant to it and can try to persuade the Government to amend it according to the advice from outside. I understand that it will be impossible for us to do that.
I should have thought that, at this stage, Mr. Speaker, you could accept an Adjournment motion so that we can develop our arguments and the Government can justify their great haste in pushing through the legislation without allowing any of us the right to consult local authorities in the areas from which we come.
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)rose——
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)rose——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Points of order take up time. I think that I can deal with this matter. As the House will know, I have no authority to determine the business of the House. I do not control the order of business. That is a matter for the Leader of the House and the usual channels. Under Standing Order No. 9 it is not possible for me to accept a dilatory motion from the hon. Member at this stage before the orders of the day have been entered upon.
§ Mr. SpearingFurther to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You kindly mentioned in your reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that the Chairman of the Committee could deal with this matter because a procedural motion was likely to be moved before we proceeded with the Bill. Even if that procedural motion were moved, the strict limits of the debate would be of the order of proceedings and not whether it was right to proceed with considering the Bill.
Will you confirm that the point that concerns my hon. Friends could be raised with the Chairman of the Committee at the commencement of the Committee proceedings and that, under Standing Order No. 34, it would be open to the Chairman, if he saw fit—if he did not think that it was an abuse of the rules of the House—to accept a motion to adjourn the Committee and beg to ask leave to sit again if that Question were not put forthwith? I understand that that procedure might be followed. Will you confirm that as it might be helpful in Committee?
§ Mr. SpeakerI can confirm that the Committee is the proper place to raise these matters. When Members get 604 into Committee they will have an opportunity to suggest alternatives to the Secretary of State's procedural motion. It will be up to the Chairman of Ways and Means to consider the matter.
§ Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We understand what you are saying about standing order No. 34 and whether it may be more appropriate for the motion to be moved after you have left the Chair. However, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is very much for you to give your view about the general conduct of the business today. I should like to re-emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that we are very much governed by procedure in the handling of Bills and that a major departure from the conventions is of great disservice to the House. That is what has happened on this occasion.
If complicated new amendments are tabled and made available only on Friday afternoon at 1 o'clock, it rules out all possibility of Opposition Members tabling amendments. Today we are dealing with a provisional selection of amendments that ends with clause 9. I submit that the matters raised in the complicated schedule alone deal with a large number of clauses long before clause 9 is reached. Therefore, the possibilities of amendment and debate of those serious matters are pre-empted if we proceed today.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, at least to give your view to the House as to the way in which the matter has been handled and whether, in your view, it is a matter with which we should proceed at this stage?
§ Mr. SpeakerI thank the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, he knows that the role of Mr. Speaker is to ensure that the matters raised are in order. It is not his role to express views on how matters have been handled so long as they are in order.
§ Mr. Tony Banksrose——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have already advised the House that I have no authority to do this, and that I do not select the amendments for discussion in Committee. The House should proceed to the Committee stage, where that matter can properly be debated on the Secretary of State's motion.
§ Mr. SpeakerI will accept the point of order.
§ Mr. BanksI am sorry to have caused you so much anger, Mr. Speaker, by attempting to rise on a point of order. I should like you to accept my apologies immediately for having so concerned you.
However, the matter goes somewhat wider because it is a matter of order. The fact is that you have constantly told us—we have accepted it—that you are here to protect our rights as Back Benchers. The London borough of Newham is grievously damaged by the Bill. It could be argued that the Government are abusing the House by the way in which they are proceeding with the Bill. We are asking only for an opportunity to act as diligent Back Benchers, in order to protect the interests of those whom we represent. The point that I put to you, Mr. Speaker, is that we have not had a proper opportunity to do so.
Therefore, this is a matter of order, Mr. Speaker, and one upon which you can rule, because it touches upon our ability as hon. Members to protect and advance the interests of our constituents.
§ Mr. SpeakerThere is no question of anger. I said what I did to the hon. Gentleman because he sought to interrupt me. The hon. Gentleman would not wish me to interrupt him.
I advise the hon. Gentleman and the House that I have no authority to do what is suggested. I do not select the amendments for a Committee stage; that is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, and for the Committee, when we get there. Therefore, there is no point in raising the matter with me at this stage.
§ Mr. Eric Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am on my feet.