Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. At the end of the morning sitting we encountered a guillotine motion. I am conscious that guillotine motions have a party political element, and I appreciate that it would be inappropriate to explore that now. I do not wish to question the principle, although I have objected to it in the past when I raised a point of order about the fact that we could not have a vote on each of the clauses that we had not reached. However, I appreciate that you had no choice but to do what the rules required you to do, which was to put the question on all the clauses together.

I am mindful of the fact, Mr. Pike, that you are a member of the Modernisation Committee, which is considering the detailed workings of guillotine motions. It occurs to me that it might be worth encouraging you to tell that Committee that although the Opposition objected—we had no choice but to vote against everything, because is was a block vote—we would not necessarily have objected to all the clauses. In that case, we could make more progress, and be seen to be making more progress, by taking the clauses one at a time. It is in that spirit, rather than an attempt to reopen the generality, that I raise that point.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman raises issues that are not matters for me. I have to carry out the decisions of the Committee and of the House. However, the point has been made, and I am sure that other members of this Committee are also members of the Modernisation Committee. Those issues are to be reviewed by the Modernisation Committee, and in my capacity as a member of the Chairmen's Panel, I know that that Committee, too, is considering the matter. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the point that he makes, although not relevant to me in my capacity as Chairman of this Committee, will be considered.Clause 12 Survey of area