Business of the House Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Leader of the House

Business of the House

David Burrowes Excerpts
Thursday 31st January 2013

(11 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Burrowes Portrait Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
- Hansard - -

May we have a debate on the programme motion on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, given that there will not be a debate on that subject on Tuesday? That would allow the Government, and indeed the Opposition, to explain why they appear to be running scared of the Committee of the whole House deliberating on the issue, and why they are breaking with established convention from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Acts of 1990 and 2008 in not enabling Members of Parliament fully to express their consciences at Committee stage.

Lord Lansley Portrait Mr Lansley
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to explain. We have thought very carefully about the issues raised by him and colleagues on both sides of the House. I will not go into the 1990 analogy at length, but at that time there was no precedent or practice for taking evidence in a Public Bill Committee.

David Burrowes Portrait Mr Burrowes
- Hansard - -

What about hybrid Bills?

Lord Lansley Portrait Mr Lansley
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Bill is not a hybrid Bill.

We propose that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill be debated in Committee, which affords the opportunity for the taking of oral evidence. From my point of view, that was a compelling reason for considering the Bill in Committee. Because of its technical character, the unitary nature of the argument and the need for oral evidence, particularly on the permissive religious marriage provisions, that is absolutely the right thing. It is also right to make it clear that we are prepared for two days of debate on the Floor of the House for consideration on Report.