---

Mrs. Liddell: We have to await the decisions and recommendations of the Select Committee. The House itself will also have to take decisions on those matters. I have respect for the procedures of the House; when I hear the interjections of some Opposition Members, I sometimes wonder whether they share that respect. Indeed, by attempting to introduce modernisation procedures, we want to get away from the type of yah-boo interventions that we have heard this evening.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Government do not propose changes to the Bill during the next Session, will the House require a new Second Reading of precisely the same Bill--or is that a matter of procedure that has not yet been invented?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We shall have to await events. Perhaps the Minister may be allowed to explain, as far as possible--[Hon. Members: "She will not."] The Minister has yet to be fully heard. There is no point of order on that matter on which the Chair can rule.

Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the motion a continuation motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a committal motion. I call Mrs. Helen Liddell.

Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have just dealt with that point of order, Mr. Bottomley.

Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a fresh point of order?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

If this is not a continuation motion, there would have to be a Second Reading in the next Session. The only thing that can obviate a Second Reading is a continuation motion. Either this is a continuation motion and the Minister has not told us, or it is not a continuation motion and she has not told us. If she will not tell us, the House cannot come to a conclusion on the motion, because we do not know what it means. That point of order is

19 Jul 1999 : Column 898

appropriate to Members on both sides of the House. If the Minister can tell us, that will be helpful; if she cannot, we need advice from the Chair on whether this is a continuation motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must accept the fact that I have already ruled on that question. He told me that he was making a fresh point of order, but it is not a fresh point of order. I have already ruled on his point of order--this is not a continuation motion. The motion should be dealt with on its merits. I call Mrs. Liddell.

Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to your ruling that this is a committal motion, will you clarify whether it is a committal motion under Standing Order No. 63, or--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman raised a point of order earlier and it was dealt with by Madam Speaker. There is nothing further that I can add.

Mr. Wilshire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Madam Speaker has already ruled on that point of order. There is nothing more that I can say. I call Mrs. Liddell.

Mrs. Liddell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I may return to--

Mr. Wilshire: On a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May the House be told whether the word "notwithstanding" on the Order Paper means that Standing Order No. 63 does not apply to the motion that we are debating?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is correct. I call Mrs. Liddell.

Mrs. Liddell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The purpose of the motion is to commit the Bill to the Select Committee for consideration. Some of the posturing that we have seen this evening is the kind of gesturism that brings the House into disrepute with the general public. The public want progress on the establishment of the statutory underpinning of the Strategic Rail Authority. Indeed, several of the organisations that have commented on the SRA proposals have made it plain that they recommend to the House the advantages--

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Liddell: No, I have no intention of giving way at present. The hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber earlier.

The Bill sets out the powers that the Government plan to give to the SRA. It will set the context in which the shadow SRA--which has to use existing powers--will negotiate with the industry. For the past two years, we have held consultations with the railway industry and we are now in a position to introduce the Bill. The Transport

19 Jul 1999 : Column 899

Sub-Committee has shown a close interest in railways issues and we look forward to receiving the Committee's advice.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would help the House considerably if we knew the basis on which we were proceeding. You have helpfully advised the House that the matter does not fall under the terms of Standing Order No. 63(2), but it would help if you could advise us under which Standing Order we are proceeding.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a committal motion on the Order Paper which has to be debated on its merits. It is perfectly in order for the Government to table a committal motion of this sort. It is accepted that we are trying new procedures: this is a procedure put before the House by the Government and it should be debated on its merits.

Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it does not come under Standing OrderNo. 63(2), presumably the matter must come under another Standing Order. So that we know the basis on which we are proceeding, all I seek is your guidance as to which Standing Order the matter is being considered under.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me try to help the right hon. Gentleman. It does not have to come under a Standing Order. I have ruled that the matter does not come under the particular Standing Order that has been quoted.The motion falls to be determined on its merits. The Government are entitled to put a motion before the House, and the House is entitled to debate that motion.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That ruling is extremely helpful as it means, without contradiction, that there must a Second Reading in the next Session. If that is the basis on which we are having this debate, it makes it far easier.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter on which the Chair can rule--it is a matter to be elicited in the course of debate.

Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have nothing further to say on the matter, Mr. Bottomley.

Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a fresh point of order?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes. If it is up to the Minister to decide whether there is to be a Second Reading next Session, or if she has the freedom to say that there will not be, that needs to be stated clearly. If the rules of the House are that Second Reading takes place in the Session in which the Bill is considered if there is no continuation motion, the Minister, following your ruling, needs to say that yes, of course there will be a Second Reading in the next Session. Will she say that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of being disorderly. I have already ruled on that matter.

19 Jul 1999 : Column 900

What the hon. Gentleman seeks is not something that I can say from the Chair, but a matter to be elicited from the Minister. We are debating the motion on its merits.

Mrs. Liddell: You have made the matter perfectly clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I commend the motion to the House.

10.47 pm

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex): Somehow, I doubt whether this is the Minister's finest hour at the Dispatch Box.

The Government's legislative programme is rapidly descending into farce. Novel--to put it mildly--procedures are being introduced on the Floor of the House that have not even been considered by the Modernisation Committee. In its first report, "The Legislative Process", the Committee refers to pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills, and that is what we expected to happen in this Session. In the Queen's Speech, it was announced that the Railways Bill would be published in draft form and that it would be subject to some form of consultation. It would have been open to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and her Select Committee to study that draft Bill.

In fact, the Select Committee carried out a study on the subjects pertaining to the Bill, and its report has been useful in informing the debate on Second Reading. Therefore, having had a Second Reading debate and in the light of the Committee's report, it seems superfluous to send the Bill to the Select Committee. It has already taken evidence on all the issues involved and reached a view which has been expressed in a report; the report has been given to the Government; and the Government have responded. It seems ludicrous that the Bill should come forward for Second Reading and then be referred to the Select Committee in the form approved by the House on Second Reading.

---