Oral Answers to Questions — House of Commons – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 23 June 1980.
asked the Chancellor of thes Duchy of Lancaster what is his policy towards the provision of time for debates on prayers to annul statutory instruments.
I seek to provide time for such debates whenever there is evidence of a general wish among hon. Members for a particular prayer to be debated.
Is the Leader of the House aware that, despite his generally good record on parliamentary procedural reforms, he is not doing at all well on prayers, and that although fewer prayers against statutory instruments have been tabled in this Session than in many previous Sessions, he has managed to secure debates on them—on the Floor of the House or in Committee—in only just over one-third of cases, and that the rights of Back Benchers have been eroded a great deal in this matter of statutory instruments?
How does the hon. Member know what the effect of my prayers has been? I agree with him, on the issue that he has raised, that the present position is not satisfactory. There will be an opportunity to debate the whole question during the debate on procedure which I have promised the House. There have been rather fewer prayers recently than in earlier Sessions.
Will my right hon. Friend help us to make some progress? I have consulted "Erskine May" on this matter and it, too, is very vague. It refers to the fact that it has not been possible to devise procedures to enable us to question statutory instruments by means of prayers on sufficient occasions. Surely this is one of the essential rights of Back Benchers. Will my right hon. Friend seek to initiate a reform that will mean having a new paragraph in "Erskine May"?
This is very much a matter that can be raised in the procedure debate. I shall be putting proposals before the House on the part of the Government, but it is open to the House to decide what it wishes to take place.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have found it extremely efficacious to pray to him, that my prayer was promptly answered and that the debate was granted, but that it was not much good since the Department concerned refused to take any notice whatever of a stinging defeat inflicted upon it in the Committee which debated the prayer, and that therefore the whole procedure seemed to be otiose?
I am aware of what happened in that Committee. It took place in rather exceptional circumstances, after one and a half hours of discussion, when only nine of the 17 members of the Committee were present. But the general point that my hon. Friend has raised has validity, and I can only say that is should be thoroughly discussed during the debate on procedure.