1ST ALLOTTED DAY (Hansard, 22 March 1988)

§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are facing this evening's debate and discussion on a large number of new clauses and amendments before the House in a limited time. May I have your procedural guidance as to how the discussion will proceed? Will it be that we shall follow each line of new clauses or amendments as on the Order Paper and does that not mean, therefore, that a great many new clauses and amendments will not be reached? My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and I have tabled new clauses on the important question of discipline in schools, including consideration of the restoration of corporal punishment at a period of extreme indiscipline in some schools. Will we have to decide whether to seek to move those new clauses without any discussion, or will we be able to contribute to the debate on the cluster of new clauses with which our new clauses are grouped?

§ Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps when you come to reply to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) you might wish to invite him to say whether he voted for the guillotine motion on 1 February and, if he did, to suggest that he has been hoist on his own petard, because all the consequences to which he has referred flow directly from the guillotine motion which I think he voted for and which Opposition Members voted against, precisely because we thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House ought to have an opportunity to discuss the Bill fully.

§ Mr. Greenway
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We cannot have a debate on this. I can answer the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). We shall proceed in the order of the selection on the Order Paper. The guillotine falls at 6 o'clock, 8.45 pm and again at 10 o'clock. If we get on, it is possible that the new clause of the hon. Member for Ealing, North will be reached. However, that will not happen if we have lots of points of order.

§ Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are considering this evening not only a long Bill — it must be one of the longest we have ever considered — but a complex one. It is one of the most botched-up hastily assembled Bills that I suspect has ever been on the Floor of the House. Time and again when we were considering the Bill in Committee, the Government presented us at the last minute with a series of amendments and ill-prepared texts. On Friday, not only were we asked to consider amendments tabled after the time in which Government new clauses could be amended but some of the amendments, masquerading as Government amendments, were in the name of Mr. Stanley Baker and there is no Member of that name in the House.
Today, hon. Members might like to note that we are being asked to consider a series of amendments, the first 205 of which is in the first group we are asked to consider, together with Government new clause 41, which make no sense. Government amendments Nos. 107 and 108 do not refer to the clause listed. Government amendment No. 107 refers to Page 7, line 35 [Clause 7] There is no clause 7 on page 7 of the Bill. The same applies to Government amendment No. 108.
How can we adequately debate these matters when we do not even know the clauses to which the printed amendments refer? It is only too typical of the chaotic and botched-up way in which the Bill has been brought before the House. We really must know what issues we are debating.

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall look into the point that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned and say something about it when I have done so.

§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. New clause 62, standing in my name, and the new clauses standing in the names of Welsh nationalist Members and other Opposition Members, have not been selected. Will it be possible to debate the new clauses that have not been selected in the final group of new clauses?

§ Mr. Speaker
I cannot alter my selection. We are under a guillotine motion and we must get on. We stand no chance of getting to the new clauses tabled by Back Benchers if points of order continue. In order to get to those new clauses, we should now get on with the Government new clauses, which come first.

§ Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened to your advice, and to what the Opposition have said, and I voted for the guillotine, but the way in which the timetable has been operated means that only an hour and a quarter has been given to a substantial series of new clauses. Great interest has been exhibited in new clauses 30 and 31 which, as you properly remind me, Sir, are Back Benchers' clauses. Recalling that when you were elected to your august office you declared your intention of safeguarding the interests of Back Benchers, it seems unfortunate that we may not reach new clauses 30 and 31, which deal with an important matter—corporal punishment in schools.

§ Mr. Speaker
The Business Committee has considered this matter and a few moments ago the House passed the resolution of the Business Committee. I am bound by that order of the House.

§ Mr. Straw
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you explain to the hon.' Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) that his failure to have new clauses 30 and 31 on the flogging and beating of children discussed arises from two consequences of his actions? One was to vote for the guillotine motion that has curtailed the debate; and the second was his failure to get in the two new clauses before the Opposition.

§ Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that many Conservative Members have not the faintest idea what the guillotine is. They are now trying to go back on it and have new matters included. They are so ignorant about it that they thought they had set up a guillotine in New Palace Yard and put the Opposition on it. They do not know what they are doing.