Hansard - United Kingdom Parliament

37 20 JUNE 2011 Points of Order
38
Points of Order
4.14 pm
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab): On a point of
order, Mr Speaker. The House is only too well aware of
the mess that the Government have made of the handling
of the Health and Social Care Bill, but today’s Order Paper
reveals that they are now outrageously and desperately
trying to deny the House the right to decide whether it
wishes to recommit the whole Bill to a Committee. Can
you confirm, Mr Speaker, that not only would the
business motion tabled by the Leader of the House
specifically prevent the tabling of any amendment on
the form of recommittal to the motion tabled by the
Secretary of State for Health, which will appear on
tomorrow’s Order Paper—for example, an amendment
proposing the recommittal of the whole Bill—but if
tonight’s motion were objected to, there would be no
debate on recommittal tomorrow?
Is it possible, Mr Speaker, for you to prevent that
from happening, and protect the rights of Members, by
establishing, under Standing Order 83B, a programming
committee that could meet and pass a motion today
which might enable us to have a proper debate tomorrow,
with amendments, by invoking one of the exceptions in
Standing Order 83A to the rule that programme motions
should be taken forthwith?
Can you also tell us, Mr Speaker, whether, if the
motion tabled by the Leader of the House is passed
tonight, it will be in order for Members to argue in
tomorrow’s debate that the whole Bill should be
recommitted, especially as a motion in the name of the
Leader of the Opposition calling for precisely that has
been on the Order Paper since 24 May?
Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of
the House for his point of order and for giving me
notice of it. The right hon. Gentleman has raised a
series of very important matters, and I think that it is
important to both him and the House for me to respond
to them.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East
Cleveland) (Lab) rose—
Mr Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to
deal with the point of order from the shadow Leader of
the House? If after I have done so he remains dissatisfied,
I will of course deal with any ensuing point of order.
Let me say first that the shadow Leader of the House
is correct in supposing that if the Business of the House
motion were objected to tonight, the programme (No. 2)
motion would be put without debate or opportunity for
amendment tomorrow. That is, as a matter of procedure,
factually correct. The programme (No. 2) motion would
be put without debate, as are all such motions varying
or supplementing a programme order, unless they fall
into one of the four exceptions listed in Standing
Order No. 83A. The motion to be moved tomorrow is
not covered by any of those exceptions, and so would
ordinarily be put forthwith.
Secondly, there will indeed be no opportunity to
move amendments. If the Business of the House motion
is agreed tonight, the programme (No. 2) motion will be
debated for up to an hour tomorrow, but no amendments
may be moved. The same would apply if the motion
were taken forthwith in accordance with Standing
Order No. 83A. It would still be open to Members to
table such amendments today to appear on the Order
Paper tomorrow, but either way, under our procedures
they could not be moved.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a very important
question, namely whether it would be in order in the
debate on the programme (No. 2) motion tomorrow to
argue that the whole Bill, not just the clauses specified,
should be recommitted, to which the explicit answer is
yes. It would be possible to argue that more or less of
the Bill ought to be recommitted, or, of course, to argue
against recommittal altogether.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concern
about the matter as a whole—and he referred specifically
to the position set out by the Leader of the Opposition
last month—but the House is not being asked to agree
to anything that is out of order. It is for the House to
decide on the motions before it. As for the particular
question of a programming committee, I can tell the
right hon. Gentleman and the House that the Standing
Order relating to such committees would apply only to
proceedings on the Floor of the House, and the initial
programme Order of 31 January specifically excluded
the operation of a programming committee on this Bill.
Whether my response is welcome or unwelcome to
different Members in the various parts of the House, I
hope that Members will accept that it has been fully
thought through, and has been offered on the basis of
the Standing Orders of the House.
Hilary Benn rose—
Mr Speaker: Of course I will take a follow-up point
of order from the shadow Leader of the House.
Hilary Benn: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.
I am extremely grateful to you for your comprehensive
response. The Health and Social Care Bill programme
motion passed on 31 January disapplied Standing
Order 83B, which relates to programming committees
only in relation to consideration and Third Reading,
and which does not apply to Committee stage. If that is
the case, could not a programming committee bring the
matter within scope by the device of now suggesting a
Committee of the whole House, which would therefore
ensure that, even if that Committee of the whole House
were not to be agreed to tomorrow, first, there would be
a debate and, secondly, we could consider amendments?
Mr Speaker: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman
says, but it is my understanding that a programming
committee relates to the proceedings on the Floor of
the House, and I think he is in some difficulty if he is
praying it in aid in support of the proposition he has
just made. If I am mistaken, no doubt I will be advised,
and if he does not think that I have fully seized the
gravamen of his point, he is welcome to return to it
because these are important matters, but that is the best
initial response I can offer.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Further to
that point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your
careful explanation of this issue, but am I right in
thinking that if the Business of the House motion is
objected to tonight, the Government would not necessarily
have to introduce their substantive motion tomorrow
and could, instead, have a rethink?