Company Law Reform Bill [Lords]
12:00 pm
Crispin Blunt (Whip, Whips; Reigate, Conservative)
On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. Happily, the opportunity afforded to us by the break in the debate allowed me to consult “Erskine May” and pick up a point that I should have picked up when we began to discuss the second motion in the Programming Sub-Committee.
The motion is so substantially the same as that rejected by the Committee last week that it is my contention that it is out of order. Page 388 of “Erskine May”, which refers to matters that have already been decided during the same Session, says:
“Whether the second motion is substantially the same as the first is finally a matter for the judgment of the Chair.”
If we are considering a motion that is substantially the same as the first, I would contend that altering the time-out for the Committee by only one hour, as is self-evidently the case, means that this motion has already been substantially decided on by the Committee.
The point of substance here is that the Opposition are anxious that the Government and their draftsmen should have enough time to come forward with their amendments on the consolidation effect. We see the summer recess as an opportunity for that and we would like the out-date to be not 13 July, but 19 October.
That is the substantive point, but the technical and procedural one is self-evident—this is substantially the same motion. It has already been rejected by the Committee and cannot be put to us again.