HC Deb 16 December 1946 vol 431 cc1614-6
Sir Ralph Glyn

I rise to a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, to ask you to be so good as to give guidance and a Ruling in this House to some hon. Members who are known to their colleagues to have a personal interest in a public Bill. This is a matter of great importance, because it is difficult to know what the rule should be. Therefore I leave it to you to say whether it is possible for you to give a Ruling on this occasion.

Mr. Speaker

I must apologise to the House for a somewhat lengthy reply. The matter is of definite importance, as one does not know what might happen, or what Member might, or might not, eventually be affected in this way, during the passage of a Bill. My Ruling is as follows:

The question whether an hon. Member's interest in the matter on which a Division takes place, is of such a kind that he should refrain from voting is a question of which the Member himself is, in the first instance, the judge. It can also be raised on a Motion to disallow the vote of a Member immediately after the figures of a Division in which he voted are declared, and then it is a question for the House to decide. Unless, however, the grounds on which the vote is objected to fall within the recognised principle which governs this subject, the Chair is entitled to overrule the objection and declare that the Motion for disallowance is out of Order.

The precedents dealing with this question are well understood. They are based on the definition given in a Ruling by Mr. Speaker Abbot, in 1811: This interest must be a direct pecuniary interest, and separately belonging to the persons whose votes are questioned, and not in common with the rest of His Majesty's subjects, or on a matter of State policy. I would particularly direct attention to the concluding words of the Ruling, "on a matter of State policy." These are the essential words, and they explain the great difference in the treatment by the House of questions of personal interest in Private Bills and in Public Bills and matters respectively. Whereas there have been many disallowances of votes on Private Bills, there is no case on record of the disallowance of a vote on a Public Bill and only one on a public matter—namely, a Grant in Supply in aid of a survey for the construction of a railway in East Africa The grounds for this distinction are so obvious that it is hardly necessary to argue them. If they were not admitted, it would follow that a Minister could not vote against a Motion for the reduction of his salary in Committee of Supply nor any Member of the House for the establishment or increase of Members' salaries.

The hon. Baronet has taken the proper course in making a full disclosure to the House of the nature and extent of his interests which are affected by the Transport Bill. In reply to his inquiry, I have no hesitation in saying that they are not of a nature which, according to the principles and precedents which I have just mentioned, could lead to any question being raised as to the propriety of his voting on the Bill.

Nothing that I have just said must, of course, be taken as limiting the discretion of the Chairman, if the question of the disallowance of a vote on these grounds should be raised in Committee. So far as a Committee of the Whole House is concerned, the precedents show that this question would have to be decided in Committee immediately after the Division to which it related, and could not be referred to myself or to the House.

Mr. Boothby

May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether your Ruling applies to speeches made in this House or only to votes given in this House?

Mr. Speaker

Both.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew

May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if you will clarify the position with regard to Committees, because I understand that this Transport Bill is likely to be sent to a Standing Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] If it is to be sent to a Standing Committee, I think we should have the position made clear now, while we are on this point. Suppose a question of pecuniary interest arises and an hon. Member votes in the Standing Committee. Ordinarily the only way in which the matter can be dealt with is by a substantive Motion but such a Motion, I understand, cannot be moved in Standing Committee. If that position arises, what would you like us to do in Committee upstairs?

Mr. Speaker

It could not arise on a substantive Motion in Committee. It would be challenged at once, as I stated in my Ruling, and before the next Amendment was called. However, I must say this, that I cannot overrule Committees. They are responsible for themselves.

Sir C. Mac Andrew

It is quite in Order for a substantive Motion to be considered in Committee on this matter?

Mr. Speaker

I am told that there is no precedent for a case occurring in a Standing Committee. It has, however, occurred in Committee of the Whole House, and the Committee has dealt with it straight away, without a substantive Motion. It is a matter for the Committee, and they deal with it themselves.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite

Does not this show the primary importance of this Bill being taken in Committee of the Whole House?

Mr. J. J. Robertson

Can we have your Ruling, Sir, on the desirability of an hon. Member declaring his interest in a matter under discussion?

Mr. Speaker

It is always desirable for an hon. Member who has an interest to declare it. That is our custom, and I think it is desirable.