HC Deb 15 December 1953 vol 522 cc206-14
Mr. Speaker

I have a short statement with which to trouble the House. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) yesterday raised a point of order about hon. Members voting on this issue which we are about to discuss this afternoon when they may have a personal interest in the result. I did not have notice of this matter, and I have therefore carefully considered the precedents. I find that the practice of the House is clearly established over a very long time. In 1811 Mr. Speaker Abbot described an interest which would disqualify a vote in these words: This interest must be a direct pecuniary interest, and separately belonging to the persons whose votes were questioned, and not in common with the rest of his Majesty's subjects, or on a matter of state policy. This Ruling has been followed by all Speakers in the last 142 years.

The hon. Member for Nuneaton based his point on the statement that certain hon. Members were interested in the businesses of advertising and the manufacture of wireless apparatus, but there are many other persons outside this House who are engaged in the same calling. It is also clear that the original Question before the House is by its terms a matter of State policy. The original Question reads: That this House approves the general policy of Her Majesty's Government on Television Development. For both these reasons, it is clear that no question can be raised against the votes of hon. Members on the grounds that they are engaged in the manufacture of wireless equipment or in advertising in common with others of Her Majesty's subjects.

Mr. Bowles

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving that considered Ruling. I am not quite sure that the fact that the Government put a White Paper in the Vote Office and then have a debate to approve it necessarily makes it State policy, but that is a matter for argument. There may be more in this, perhaps, than you in your wisdom and through your inquiries have discovered; it may affect shareholders, it may affect directors. But surely it is up to hon. Members to ask the view of the House or to ask the Select Committee of Privileges, if that is the right body, to go into whatever evidence is put forward. We cannot possibly judge this matter in the abstract, as you yourself have said.

This matter has to be raised immediately, which means immediately after the vote has been cast. You agreed yesterday that that could not possibly be done until the next morning, when the lists were published. When I am voting in one Lobby I cannot possibly see which Tories are voting in the other Lobby, and I cannot possibly know which hon. Member I should select. [Hon. Members: "Come with us."] The point is that we shall not know until nine o'clock the next morning, when Votes and Proceedings are delivered to our houses or flats—fortunately I live in London—which hon. Members of whom we have suspicions have voted in a certain way. May I ask you, therefore, whether you would accept a manuscript Motion on Wednesday morning and, if that were agreed, have it debated on Wednesday afternoon if we so desired?

Mr. Speaker

It is the invariable practice of this House, and it has been held by the occupant of the Chair for a very long time, that any question as to the validity of a Member's vote must be raised immediately after the Division—immediately the vote has been cast. That is the rule and I have no power to depart from it. As to the suggestion that the hon. Member should put down a Motion for an alteration in the practice of the House, that is a matter which he can consider.

Mr. Bowles

I may not have been quite clear in my question, for I was interrupted too much by hon. Members opposite. You perhaps did not understand me, Mr. Speaker, because hon. Members made so many interruptions. I quite understand that this matter has to be raised immediately after the vote has been cast, but I shall not know which way the hon. Member for so-and-so voted even at 10.10 p.m. tonight. You agreed with me yesterday, Sir, that obviously we could not know who voted until we had seen the voting lists. This has a very serious consequence; we cannot raise the matter after 10 o'clock tonight because there is no suspension of the rule for this debate and we go on to the Adjournment straight away.

The point which I am putting for consideration is this: the matter has to be raised the next day. I do not suppose it is possible for the Clerk to accept a printed Motion, but it has to be raised by a substantive Motion, it has to be raised the next day, and the earliest possible moment is at half-past three. [Hon. Members: "Get on."] This may be very irritating for some hon. Members, but it is very important and I should have thought that in their own interests they might like to hear what is the real position.

Mr. Speaker, how can I possibly raise the matter at 10.10 p.m.? Do I sit, wearing my hat, and say, "I think the hon. Member for so-and-so voted in a certain way"? There may be 16 of them. Surely the matter has to be raised by substantive Motion as to whether the votes should be disallowed.

Mr. Speaker

Again, I have considered that matter, and in the past hon. Members have been precluded by the Chair from raising a matter after the lapse of a certain amount of time. The rule is that undoubtedly it must be raised at once. As to how the hon. Member is to find out who votes in the other Lobby, I can offer no suggestions, but perhaps there are methods of doing so about which I know nothing.

I may say, in concluding the whole matter, that the result of my researches has been that the rule about voting and personal interests has hardly any application on matters of public policy but of course is much more strictly observed with regard to private legislation. As I have said, Mr. Speaker Abbott's ruling has undoubtedly been followed by every other occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Bowles

You agreed with me yesterday, Sir, that the first opportunity we had of checking the votes was from the Votes and Proceedings the next morning. It now seems quite impossible to take action. Any vote which is taken at the end of a two-day debate—except on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, when business is automatically exempted, or when the rule is suspended—has to be taken at 10 o'clock. Obviously nobody can then know the position and, on your Ruling, subject to your further consideration, it may be completely impossible for this, which might be a very unsavoury matter, to be raised at all.

Mr. Speaker

On that point I think I may have been the cause of some misunderstanding in what I said yesterday. I did say that the matter of disallowing the vote of an hon. Member can be raised as soon as the votes are before the House; that is to say, as soon as the Division has taken place and it is known by someone that the hon. Member has voted.

Mr. Bowles

How can we know?

Mr. Speaker

I went on to say that it has to be examined, and, of course, that examination should take place there and then. I know of no Ruling which enables me to rule in the contrary way.

Mr. M. Lindsay

May I ask you whether, in raising this subject yesterday, it was not entirely misleading and mischievous to raise the issue of the manufacturers of wireless and television sets, because they will sell them equally well quite irrespective of what authority this Parliament may decide is to be responsible for television?

Mr. Speaker

I dealt with the matter on the footing on which it was raised by the hon. Gentleman who raised the point of order, which he is entitled to do, and to which I am bound to give the best answer I can.

Mr. H. Morrison

May I put two points to you, Mr. Speaker? There are precedents, I submit to you, for Mr. Speaker varying the Rulings of his predecessors on the grounds of practicability or of a possible change of circumstances. May I put it to you that it really is impossible, as a practical proposition, when a number of hon. Members may be involved in another Lobby, for their potential critics to know who has voted? [An Hon. Member: "No, it is not."] Yes, it is. Would it not be more rational and in accordance with present-day conditions if you were to revise your predecessor's Ruling so that the matter could be raised at the earliest moment next day on the basis of the printed Division List, which enables us to know if an hon. Member voted or not? I submit that that would be a wise thing to do, and that former Speakers have done this sort of thing in the past.

The second point I wish to raise is whether it would not be right for hon. Members who have a pecuniary interest in this matter, and who stand to gain if policy is decided one way or the other, to declare their interest as and when they participate in debate in the House?

Mr. Speaker

I have frequently heard hon. Members declare their interest in these matters. As to what the right hon. Gentleman says about the procedure for raising these matters, I have given my Ruling on the basis of past practice. I know of no case, except possibly one, which was rather an extraordinary one and not a guide for the future when the matter was raised again. If it is the desire of the House to vary its practice, it will require the consideration of the House, and that is a matter that can be considered. I will gladly consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but at the moment, applying the practice of the House as I now understand it, that is my Ruling.

Mr. Bowles

I did point out yesterday that in Standing Committee votes are given orally, and therefore every hon. Member present knows how hon. Members have voted. The other case from 1892 which I looked up arose on a Committee stage or a Supply Day and it was quite early on, and was not a question that was raised at the end of the day at all. Tonight, at about 10.11 p.m., you will announce that some 290 hon. Members opposite have voted in the Lobby, but I shall not be certain of any three or four, let alone the rest.

Mr. Ede

May I submit to you, in connection with the Ruling of 1811, that in those days it was the practice for hon. Members who were not going to vote at all to withdraw from the House? One side then sat in the House and were counted in the House; the others went out and were counted as they came in. As hon. Members will recollect from the great description by Macaulay of a Division on the first Reform Bill, it was therefore possible in those days at the moment for everyone to know within reason whether a particular person had voted or not and which way he had voted. Owing to the alteration in our procedure, it is not now possible for hon. Members of one side to have really accurate information as to how other hon. Members have voted, and therefore there may very well be good grounds for considering the way in which "the earliest possible moment" of that information being available might be construed by the Chair.

Mr. Speaker

There are two points here. The Ruling of Mr. Speaker Abbot in 1811 which I quoted dealt with the main issue of what disqualifies an hon. Member from voting, but subsequent decisions of the Chair, to which I later referred, ruling that the matter must be raised at once after the Division, are of comparatively modern date. I have a great respect for what experienced Members of this House say as to what our procedure should be, and for the future that may be a matter that we should consider. That is as far as I can go, because I am bound by the established practice of the House.

Mr. K. Thompson

Would it not help tonight's problem if, when we vote, all hon. Members on the other side remain in the Chamber while we go out to vote?

Mr. Bowles

Is the reference to the earliest possible moment to be found in Standing Orders or is it based on the practice of the House?

Mr. Speaker

On practice. That matter has never been reduced to a Standing Order.

Sir I. Fraser

Is it not clear, in view of your Ruling, that there is no possibility of these votes being disallowed, that the Opposition are merely trying to get a committee of inquiry into the private affairs of hon. Members which are quite irrelevant to the debate and for party political purposes?

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are not dealing at all with what may be urged on one side or another on the merits of the matter. That is not my purpose, nor is it the question to which my mind was addressed. My duty is to advise the House as well as I can as to the rights of hon. Members in it, and I have done so, and I have dealt with it purely as a question of order. I have no concern whatever with the other matters alluded to by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser).

Captain Orr

May I ask how your general Ruling will apply in the future in a Division on the question whether we should raise our own salaries?

Mr. Speaker

As a matter of fact, that specific question has been asked and answered. It was ruled by the Speaker of the day that hon. Members were entitled to vote on their own salaries on the ground that it was a matter of State policy.

Mr. Beswick

There is another consideration. It is within even my own short experience of this House that a vote has been changed on the following day when it has become known that a Member's name has got on to the wrong list. In one instance a Member went through the Lobby on two occasions, but the fact did not become known until the next day. I submit that the mere announcing of the Division result does not constitute the whole business and that there are other factors. Have not your predecessors previously ruled that such a matter may be set right on the following day?

Mr. Speaker

I see a difference in nature and kind between a clerical error which may be put right and a matter affecting the conduct of a Member. I am not arguing the matter now. The general rule has been that the matter must be raised at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Nicholson

The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) have cast aspersions on the honour of certain hon. Members on this side of the House, whom they have refrained from naming, and have cast those reflections based on a hypothetical assumption of a future occasion that has not yet taken place. Should not they be made to withdraw those imputations based upon hypothetical circumstances, or to name the Members they have in mind?

Mr. Speaker

I did not recollect, and the printed record bears me out, that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) cast any aspersions upon the hon. Members to whom he was referring. He said that they were engaged in the wireless business and in advertising; but there is nothing wrong in that. He said, indeed, in set terms: They have openly admitted it, and I am not saying anything personal against them at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1953; Vol. 522, c. 40.] I have taken the view that he raised the subject as a matter of order. I have answered the point of order, to the effect that this is a matter of State policy, that it is not a separate personal interest of the Members involved, and that they are entitled to vote. That is as far as we can carry the matter at this moment. I think I am voicing the opinion of the House when I say that we ought to get on with the business.

Mr. Bowles

I am sorry to have to pursue this matter. If I refer to it later tonight, does that have to be done by substantive Motion handed in to the Table before, after or during the Division?

Mr. Speaker

Immediately. If the substantive Motion is accepted by the Chair, the hon. Member merely reads it out, "That the vote of So-and-So be disallowed." I am bound to say that, in view of the Ruling that I have given, and if nothing more is alleged against the hon. Members concerned that the fact that they are engaged in the wireless business or in advertising, I shall be bound to do as my predecessors have done and not accept such a Motion as contrary to the practice of the House.

Mr. Bowles

I may make a speech at ten o'clock?

Mr. Speaker

At the hour of interruption, anything necessary to bring a Division to a conclusion can go on after ten o'clock. If this is a matter arising out of the Division, it can be raised immediately, despite the ten o'clock rule.

Mr. I. O. Thomas

In giving your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, you referred to a decision of a long-departed predecessor in 1811. Would you not agree that the first necessity for any Ruling should be that it is practicable of operation and that if your Ruling in this instance proves to be inoperable because an hon. Member who wishes to raise the particular point cannot find it possible to do so immediately a Division has been taken, would not that rule out your Ruling as being invalid because it is inoperable?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member has misunderstood the position. The Ruling of 1811 to which I referred did not deal with how the matter was to be raised. It merely gave a particular Ruling on what disqualified a Member's vote. As I said in reply to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), the Rulings as to how a question should be raised and when, and that it should be raised immediately after the Division, are all much more recent Rulings than that.

Mr. Thomas

Should it not be necessary for Mr. Speaker to indicate how a Ruling can be operated, if it is generally appreciated by Members to any wide extent that a Ruling which has been given cannot be put into operation because the time is not available?

Mr. Speaker

That does not arise. I am by no means convinced that it is beyond the ingenuity of hon. Members to find out immediately how certain Members have voted.

Mr. Nicholson

I am sorry to detain you and the House on this matter, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) said that it would appear that certain hon. Members on this side of the House would have a particular interest in mind and not a general interest. That is an accusation of possible dishonourable conduct under hypothetical circumstances. I put it to you that if a newspaper had said that certain hon. Members on either side of the House were preparing to vote, having their particular interest in mind and not a general interest, that would have been considered a prima facie breach of Privilege. I suggest that in those circumstances the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South has been abusing the Privilege of this House.

Mr. Speaker

I can only say that I do not agree. No hon. Member has been named in this matter. To ask the general question how a Member is entitled to vote and whether he is debarred from voting—there can be nothing wrong in that. The matter has frequently been discussed in the past. I have looked up the precedents. We have generally had some discussion but I think no hon. Member has ever taken the point that the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) is now taking. I see nothing wrong.